Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.
Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.
In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.
That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.
This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.
This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.
The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.
Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.
Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.
This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.
RELATED: If Tim Kaine’s right, America’s founders were wrong
Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.
Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
In 1939, George Orwell coined the phrase "Judeo-Christian ethic" to include the values that formed the moral foundation of Western civilization.
This ethic influenced the American founders and helped shape their views on liberty, rights, and law. Post-Enlightenment philosophers have criticized the irrational aspects of religion and its role in the politics of state, but most have acknowledged the role that the Judeo-Christian ethic has served in preserving the fabric of society.
The idea that secular humanism is salvific for the individual or for society at large has been repeatedly discredited when Marxist ideology has been put into practice.
"Progressivism," on the other hand, is a political philosophy focused on social progress through systemic reforms. It demands a strong central government dedicated to countering societal inequality and injustice. The progressive movement historically shares roots in Christianity and secular humanism, although in recent decades it has emphasized a reliance on science and technology and antipathy toward any expression of religion in the public square.
Left-leaning since its inception in the 19th century, progressivism has, since the 1960s, adopted misotheistic Marxist ideology. Its proponents have focused primarily on discrediting Christian religious practice.
In the Biden administration, for example, both public and private expressions of Christianity came under attack by federal agencies despite First Amendment guarantees that Americans can practice their religion without government interference. These government transgressions are currently being reversed by the new faith-friendly Trump administration.
So why does progressivism target Christianity specifically?
The obvious answer is that Christianity has been the dominant religion in America since its founding, and at least until recently, most Americans continued to engage with its practice. But religious affiliation constitutes a challenge to the progressive secular state, as this state insists that there can be no greater authority than itself.
The emphasis on freedom of individual within Christianity also tends to resist the enforced conformity that is central to neo-Marxist ideology and identity politics. Progressivism is best viewed as a secular humanist civic religion that is engaged in a religious war with monotheistic faith.
RELATED: Christianity's real crisis isn't atheism — but a far more sinister deception
As Bertrand Russell opined, Marxism is in many respects an atheistic restatement of Christianity, but unlike the Christian “kingdom of God,” its utopian goals can only be realized through the authority of the state.
For this reason, all Marxist states are openly antagonistic to theistic religion.
Since the 1960s, Marxist ideologues, many having fled Nazi fascism in Europe, recognized that a revolution to install socialist and communist values was unlikely to succeed in America. Instead, they envisioned a less radical evolutionary strategy aimed at infiltrating the institutions that define American culture — including its educational systems, news media, entertainment industry, and corporations — with Marxist ideas.
But for this strategy to succeed, it would first have to transform the values of the Judeo-Christian ethic in the direction of Marxism.
A document in the 1963 "Congressional Record" outlines the plan of Marxists to undermine America by targeting the family unit, promoting deviant sexualities, and fostering criminal behavior. This strategy was aligned with neo-Marxist postmodern philosophies being taught in universities that questioned the possibility of objective truth and viewed virtually all societal transactions through the post-colonial polarized lens of “oppressors” and “oppressed.”
But in order to succeed, this strategy could not break radically with the past. Rather, it was necessary to retain those aspects of the Judeo-Christian ethic that had been established as part of the American “social imaginary.”
To this end, neo-Marxism adopts Judeo-Christian concerns with “social justice” but ignores its focus on law. This has allowed progressivism, in its current neo-Marxist “woke” avatar, to “stand for social justice” while simultaneously attacking white privilege, normative sexuality, law and order, and religion.
Although Christianity has been the primary focus of progressive vitriol, it stands to reason that the other source of the Judeo-Christian ethic would also be a target for hostility.
Following the October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel, anti-Israel protests led by progressives erupted on America’s college campuses and streets. Jews represent a small minority of Americans and, as such, do not represent a numerical challenge to progressive goals.
However, loyalty to religion and the state of Israel, as well as Judaism’s focus on law, elicited the age-old criticisms of Jewish particularism by Marxists.
Why, then, has Islam, a monotheistic religion, been spared the wrath of progressives? There are several likely reasons.
First, Islam is a newcomer to the American scene and, until recently, had little political influence and did not constitute a noticeable resistance to progressive goals.
Second, “woke” progressives imagine all Muslims as oppressed peoples of color who have suffered at the hands of imperial governments. Moreover, radical Islam, like Marxism, seeks to undermine the Judeo-Christian traditions of the West.
Radical Islam, like Marxism, seeks to undermine the Judeo-Christian traditions of the West.
Jihad against the West with the goal of restoring a theocratic caliphate has been a goal of fundamentalist Islam since its inception. Indeed, nowhere in Islamic countries have Christians or Jews ever enjoyed equitable freedom with Muslims, nor are women or the LGBTQ+ afforded equal freedoms with Muslim men, a fact that progressives assiduously avoid admitting.
Although Marxists and Islamists have banded together to undermine Judeo-Christian values in the West, theirs is an uncomfortable alliance, as the atheistic Marxist state is ultimately incompatible with an Islamic caliphate. Only in Muslim countries governed by secular strongmen has an alliance with Marxism achieved even a modicum of success.
Finally, one must always “follow the money.” And in recent years, Islamic governments have provided substantial financial resources to progressive causes because they share in common the goal of “transforming” America.
If the right to practice the Judeo-Christian traditions is to be preserved, it is incumbent upon America’s religious leaders to recognize that the goals of progressivism are antithetical to faith, and they must resist being co-opted by misotheistic ideology out of fear or ignorance.
The idea that secular humanism is salvific for the individual or for society at large has been repeatedly discredited when Marxist ideology has been put into practice.
Marxist ideology, therefore, should be seen in its true light, which is as the product of a destructive impulse within the human psyche that will only be fully extinguished in the messianic future.
“It’s all about Jesus.”
That simple message is a central truth of the Christian faith, yet this powerful proclamation recently ignited a bizarre flurry of angst and a wild brouhaha on social media.
For too long we’ve tolerated and fostered a blatant cancel culture that seeks to punish anyone with whom we disagree.
Of course, it wasn’t so much the Christ-centric message that ruffled feathers as it was the messenger. See, an absurd online drama kicked off after Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson shared an X post from conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.
The message, which simply read, “It’s all about Jesus,” wasn’t political or caustic. It was merely a biblical assertion that Jackson likely saw and, in turn, chose to repost to inspire his followers in their faith, as he regularly publishes Christian messages. But some people were so incensed that Jackson would dare post any sentiment from the likes of Kirk that they took to social media platforms to air their grievances.
The reactions ranged from obnoxious to unhinged, but all of them had one thing in common: They each, to some degree, illustrated why President Donald Trump defied all odds to win a second term.
Americans are tired of the cancel culture, word-policing nonsense that became all too routine in recent years. And they’re finally voting, behaving, and speaking in ways that show just how much they’d like to return to a world where political diversity isn’t treated like a deadly toxin.
These citizens want to be free to speak up against bizarre social trends without the fear of cancellation — a tool too many progressives have used to effectively shut down free speech. Or, like Jackson, these Americans simply want the freedom to speak the truth without retribution.
Trump, a boisterous businessman-turned-politician, has somehow become the unlikely hero paving the way for such sanity.
Of course, not everyone is on board with common sense, as evidenced by some of the reactions to Jackson’s social media post. Certain people, it seems, simply can’t help themselves, believing their feelings and emotions trump all else.
RELATED: How the liberal media's crusade against Christianity just backfired
“[I’m] very aware that lamar jackson [sic] probably has zero idea who charlie kirk [sic] is and is solely [retweeting because it] talks about his faith,” one frustrated social media user wrote. “But it still [sic] wild to see your favorite players [sic] name right above the second spawn of satan himself.”
Other posts across X were similar, with people clutching their pearls over the idea that a popular football star would have the nerve to share a faithful message from one of their cultural and political opponents. The response was big enough to spark some media headlines.
One outlet alleged Jackson was “sacked online,” and Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, openly called the response a “liberal meltdown.” Chaos aside, Kirk also used the opportunity to praise the NFL star for what he called “courage and conviction” — a purported refusal to apologize even amid intense anger from some fans.
After all, Jackson could have cowered, apologized, or even removed the post. But he chose to leave it up and left the festering debate to simmer on its own.
As for Kirk, he not only praised Jackson, but he affirmed during a “Fox & Friends” interview his belief that Christ is the most essential element in life.
"I just want to say to Lamar ... you are more than welcome in this big movement that we are building,” Kirk said. "You could be a Democrat; you could be on the left. I don't care. Jesus is honestly the most important thing."
Ultimately, this is the right posture. We can spend all day fighting about politics, culture, and the toughest issues of the day — and sometimes that’s warranted, appropriate, and even a bit fun to do. But the most pressing and essential issue is Christ and where each human heart stands on the Almighty.
The inability to tolerate diverse ideas has come to infect — and ruin — almost every facet of our society.
Whether Jackson knew who Kirk is or whether he agrees with Kirk’s politics aren’t the primary issues. At its core, the message that “it’s all about Jesus” is timeless and worthy of sharing. The NFL player just wanted to drive it home, yet critics found themselves needlessly looking for a fight.
“Who cares what the naysayers say?” Kirk continued in his “Fox & Friends” interview. “[Jackson’s] standing firm for what matters most, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
That’s a wonderful, valid point, and one that shouldn’t be overlooked amid the silliness spewing from keyboard warriors who have paper-thin skin and an inability to look beyond their own political proclivities.
Tragically, the inability to tolerate diverse ideas has come to infect — and ruin — almost every facet of our society. At some point, we collectively became so emotionally unhinged that we found ourselves essentially allergic to anyone with opposing ideals.
Some people have become so deeply entrenched in this derangement that they’re unwilling or even emotionally unable to spend time with friends and family members due to differing political views. We now live in an insane, upside-down world in which media outlets churn out articles with headlines like “How to survive political talk at Thanksgiving dinner” and “10 ways to de-escalate political discussions with friends.”
It’s absolute nonsense.
Here’s how we survive political talk: We approach it like rational adults who live in a society that values free speech and expression. This isn’t complicated. Yet for too long we’ve tolerated and fostered a blatant cancel culture that seeks to punish anyone with whom we disagree.
Along the way, we’ve allowed people to become so coddled and protected in their bubbles that they can’t even handle someone like Jackson sharing a pertinent message from a figure they dislike.
If progressives can’t figure out how to coexist with conservatives and people of differing views — and if they insist on canceling or fleeing from their ideological opponents — they’re only going to continue to alienate voters and lose big. People are tired of being silenced and shamed, and the Jackson debacle is only the latest example of progressives’ child-like demeanor.
Every time I hear a Fox News host or a Republican pundit call New York City mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani a “communist” or “democratic socialist,” I wince in annoyance. Sometimes, I even yell at the TV — not that they can hear me, and even if they could, they’d probably ignore me.
In reality, however, Mamdani is not a would-be Lenin. He is, in fact, a practitioner of woke capitalism. He’s not about to nationalize the means of production or seize the assets of the wealthy progressives in Brooklyn’s Park Slope and Manhattan’s Upper East Side — the very people bankrolling his campaign and voting for him.
The more we cling to outdated Cold War categories, the less attention we give to fighting the woke maniacs dismantling our constitutional order.
What Mamdani will do, most likely, is strip police protection from working-class neighborhoods, pour taxpayer money into gimmicks like city-owned grocery stores, and glorify Hamas terrorists.
Soviet-style central planning isn’t on his agenda for the Big Apple. Cultural revolution is.
Those calling Mamdani a “communist” are playing to Boomer-era Republican fixations. They’re appealing to people who still see politics through Cold War lenses — the bad guys are “commies,” and anyone unwilling to bury socialism is the enemy.
It’s an easy way to rally the troops: Invoke Ronald Reagan’s fight against “the evil empire,” and pretend that Mao and Brezhnev still represent the ultimate threat. For some Republicans, “democratic socialist” is simply a euphemism for “communist,” and that means we’re back in the glory days of battling the Soviets. It simply isn’t so.
I’ve been called a “right-wing Marxist” by people who should know better. But when communism was the threat, I was as anti-communist as anyone alive. I even admired Senator Joseph McCarthy’s efforts to expose Soviet infiltration of the U.S. government and military — to a point. But that’s not the danger in front of us now.
The greatest danger today comes from woke maniacs embedded in media, education, and government — people dismantling our constitutional order in the name of “equity” and “inclusion.” The more we cling to outdated Cold War categories, the less attention we give to fighting them.
What’s more dangerous: Mamdani’s pie-in-the-sky economic ideas, or his militant abortion politics, his zeal for performing gender-transition surgeries on minors, his rejection of biological sex, and his anti-white rhetoric? The “communist” label is the least of our concerns.
Mamdani is a woke zealot, and nearly half of New York’s voters embrace his politics. His biggest fans are young, college-educated progressives who love both his identity-based crusades and his promises of government giveaways.
Some Republican commentators may be too nostalgic for Boomer anti-communism — or too wary of alienating their own socially liberal supporters — to confront Mamdani’s cultural extremism head-on. It’s easier to rehash 1970s and ’80s rhetoric than to grapple with the ideological fight that’s actually in front of us.
RELATED: Stop pretending the Democrats are imploding
The Manhattan Institute reports that Mamdani’s proposed budget includes $65 million for “gender-affirming care,” including surgery for minors, and the creation of a special City Hall office dedicated to LGBTQIA+ advocacy. In Minneapolis, the Democratic frontrunner — another African Muslim, though hardly devout — plans to turn the city into the nation’s hub for sex-change procedures and a sanctuary for illegal immigrants.
Yes, Mamdani wants to “promote the global intifada” and squander tax dollars on absurd programs. But his war on public safety and his hostility to traditional norms should alarm us most. None of this has anything to do with Marxism.
Communist regimes, in fact, were more conservative than Mamdani on social policy and public order. Eastern European communist parties today oppose same-sex marriage and most of the LGBTQ agenda. Mamdani’s program is far more culturally radical than anything dreamed up in the Kremlin.
It may take time for Republicans stuck in Cold War mode to grasp this. But if we keep fighting yesterday’s ideological battles, we’ll keep losing today’s cultural war.
After building a reputation for cutting federal jobs in Washington, D.C., the Department of Government Efficiency is now tied to an expansion of federal authority.
President Trump announced Monday he would take over Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department and deploy the National Guard — an unprecedented move that came less than a week after photos of a shirtless, bloodied 19-year-old former DOGE employee went viral. The president declared August 11 “Liberation Day” and vowed to end violent crime and homeless encampments in the nation’s capital.
Our nation’s capital should project security and order to the nation and the world. It must be made safe again.
Trump’s detractors immediately pointed out that violent crime, including shootings and homicides, has been falling in the district. They’re right — on paper. Violent crime is down 26% this year, according to the city’s own numbers. But those figures are under scrutiny after accusations that officials manipulated the data.
Homicides, which are harder to fudge, are down 12%: 99 killings through August 11 compared to 112 during the same period in 2024.
Numbers alone, however, can’t capture the lived reality. Having spent the last year of my 15-year career in D.C. at the city’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention, I spoke with residents desperate for change. One man told me he and his pregnant wife dove to the floor when a bullet smashed through their window. Another woman worked with neighbors to demand more police patrols. Their frustrations highlight the fact that crime isn’t just a local issue but a hyperlocal one.
One activist I met has kept a memorial wall for homicide victims in his apartment since the 1990s. Some of the kids he mentored, he said, cherished the photos and videos because they were the only images they had of their fathers. In D.C., more than 60% of murders happen in just two of the city’s eight wards — far from tourist landmarks and high-end retail stores. Last August, a Democrat council member from one of those neighborhoods called for the National Guard himself after a wave of shootings.
Yet, those communities — overwhelmingly poor and black — rarely drive the political conversation about crime. Conservatives, like progressives, focus on the violence and vagrancy near their offices, homes, and favorite restaurants. That’s not a criticism; it’s human nature.
Everyone wants to feel safe where they live, work, and visit. But people from places where one murder makes front-page news can’t easily grasp how easy it is to grow numb to constant violence and disorder.
RELATED: Legacy media’s bogus defense of DC’s safe-streets narrative crumbles under scrutiny
The left has its own contradictions. Leftists had no problem with the FBI combing through a NASCAR garage when they thought driver Bubba Wallace had been the target of a hate crime. More than 90% of D.C.’s homicide victims are black, yet racial inequality in violent crime barely registers among self-described antiracists.
Likewise, in 2021, commentator Roland Martin demanded a federal crackdown on “white domestic terrorism.” But he didn’t explain how many murder victims in D.C., Baltimore, St. Louis, Memphis, Philadelphia, Atlanta, New Orleans, or Chicago were killed by skinheads or neo-Nazis.
Whether the federal takeover will reduce crime remains to be seen. Conservatives frustrated by the government’s inability to produce the Epstein files might be overestimating how quickly crime can be cleaned up. Real change will require coordination across every level of government.
Still, my hope is simple: that whatever is done in D.C. will make it safer for residents, workers, and visitors alike. Our capital should project security and order to the nation and the world. It must be made safe again.
New York City has met many challenges in its history as the capital of capital.
The constant problem that surrounds the city is that with great wealth comes great political profligacy. It is not the first time New York has found itself staring down a time for choosing at the barrel of a gun.
Trump hasn’t yet nicknamed Zohran Mamdani ‘Mad-Mani,’ but whatever he’s called, he’s a real threat to the city.
Tom Wolfe captured the “radical chic” and “mau-mauing” of the compromised big-city life in America, most obviously in San Francisco and New York. But Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his capable chieftains snuffed out the bonfire of the vanities through such commonsense policies like fixing broken windows policing, CompStat, and welfare to work — commonsense policies that fueled an urban renaissance, which Mayor Michael Bloomberg inherited, embraced, and built upon over his three terms.
Somehow, New York voters forgot what unbridled crime in the streets and rampant racialist and redistributionist policies in city hall did to their quality of life. And so they elected Bill de Blasio as mayor. As promised, he swiftly began dismantling the regime of good governance that had made the city great again.
Eric Adams was elected precisely because the people of New York City wanted a return to law-and-order sanity after eight years of de Blasio’s progressive dumpster fire. Sadly, Adams proved to be too ethically compromised to effectively resist the flood of illegal immigrants — many of whom were dispatched on border state buses — who filled the Port Authority. Housed in luxury hotels at taxpayers’ expense, they tested New York City’s sanctuary resolve.
Motivated by his political survival instincts, Adams’ spine stiffened. Conveniently, he was summarily whacked with a federal indictment. “More lawfare!” said his defenders. “Just following the facts where they lead,” countered the Justice Department careerists.
Nevertheless, Adams and Donald Trump found common purpose — and this triggered Democrats in general and progressives in particular. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), naturally, called for Adams to step down “for the good of the city.” You know, the new mantra of the left: guilty until proven innocent.
What are the political odds of Mayor Adams winning against the Democratic Party blob that has just nominated 33-year-old anti-Israel, Marxist Zohran Mamdani as its mayoral nominee? Not good. Right now, far from a coin toss.
RELATED: Mamdani’s socialist New York sounds great — if you don’t have kids
Adams and New York City have four months to mount a credible, winning opposition. It’s a window of political opportunity that would not exist if it were not for Trump gratuitously playing a lawfare card of his own in the form of a timely presidential pardon, giving Adams a new lease on life — and New Yorkers a last chance to inhabit a livable city.
Trump hasn’t yet nicknamed Mamdani “Mad-Mani,” so I’ll go ahead and do it for him. Whatever he’s called, he’s a real threat to the city. Peter Orszag spoke for many successful business executives — the ones responsible for New York’s financial health. Appearing on CNBC, Lazard’s CEO revealed how troubling he found Mad-Mani’s “globalize the intifada” language — not to mention the would-be mayor’s antipathy for free-market capitalism and dislike for the wealthy.
Orszag strongly hinted that his firm, and all the public and cultural goods that it underwrites, could relocate to more friendly climes. Florida beckons.
What have this longtime Democrat in good standing and others, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), been hearing from the socialist-friendly new guard?
It’s “they” — the old guard — who are no longer in charge of New York City politics. The Brooklyn progressives are running things now. Atop the pyramid is the new Adam and Eve, political power couple Mad-Mani and AOC. The vibe they send out is that they would happily have the old guard acquiesce to their agenda or move to Boca Raton.
What does this ascendant power couple hold to be shared and self-evident? For them, Israel and America are both apartheid states, and capitalism is the engine of inequality. And this anti-Semitic, anti-capitalist, anti-American power couple is trending on Instagram and just won the Democratic primary. AOC is coming for you, Chuck.
Why do Democrats hold fast to obvious falsehoods? The answer is that they are repeating what they have been taught in school, from Head Start to college classes. This is what most American kids are being taught, unless they were homeschooled, took the Catholic school route, or went to Hillsdale College.
Schumer and Orszag know this, as do untold numbers of sensible, centrist Democrats. Many of them know the “Chicken for KFC” mindset firsthand in their own families and that their kids, grandkids, and wives are voting for this madness. The intifada chicken has come home to politically roost — and on your watch and with your wallet.
A new coalition of sanity needs to be built and built quickly. New York is worth fighting for and saving.
While conservatives and centrists were shaking their heads in mirth at the spectacle of “Dykes for Palestine,” AOC was still basking in the spotlight for successfully derailing a proposal from Amazon to build a second headquarters in Queens, adjacent to her congressional district. Not because she wanted the jobs in her Bronx district, but because she didn’t want them in New York City at all. Mind you, this was a project so beneficial to the area — it included some 25,000 jobs — that not only was Andrew Cuomo for it, but so was Bill de Blasio. AOC, though, was content to invoke the specter of “corporate greed,” which is what passes for reasoned debate among this generation of young Democrats.
RELATED: New York City’s likely next mayor wants to ‘globalize the intifada’
The reality is that New York City Council, and the protest industrial complex surrounding it, has gotten a lot younger. They are the ones doing the work, organizing, showing up, and winning elections. The Democratic Party is nothing without the protest industrial complex. George Soros and his son pay well and seem to have a taste for chaos.
The progressive ramparts have their favorites. They want true believers running things.
Sorry, Chuck, they are not that into you anymore. Truth be told, they never were.
Although New York has not had a viable two-party system for a long time, when things get bad enough, New Yorkers turn to a law-and-order Republican like Giuliani or an independent like Mike Bloomberg. But do NYC voters really need to wait for all those broken windows — and the chaos it symbolizes — to materialize again before waking up?
It is time for New Yorkers’ wallets to shut tight on Mamdani and open wide for Adams. A new coalition of sanity needs to be built and built quickly. New York is worth fighting for and saving. Its future hangs on the choice those who have not yet left make now.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently dealt a crushing blow to families affected by deadly childhood diseases by denying promising treatments. All caring Americans should greet this decision with disgust. Not only is the decision disgraceful, but it’s also politically hypocritical.
Bureaucrats should not let political agendas or indecision get in the way of potentially lifesaving decisions when parents of terminally ill children are more than willing to take the risk.
Earlier this month, Democrats claimed that forcing able-bodied people to work and shortening enrollment periods for the “Un-Affordable” Care Act would kill people — a prime example of “Chicken Little” hyperbole without facts.
What is factual, however, is that one of their own could actually be responsible for real deaths. The FDA, under the leadership of Dr. Vinay Prasad — a Bernie Sanders supporter — just denied two lifesaving treatments for children with rare diseases, despite these treatments having passed through the Trump administration's approval process.
Dr. Prasad, a self-identified "lifelong progressive Democrat," is the FDA’s chief medical and scientific officer and the director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. With an extensive research background, particularly in oncology, he is clearly qualified for his position. He has even rejected efforts from pharmaceutical companies to push COVID-19 vaccines for anyone over the age of 12, citing sound "patient freedom" science.
But he needs to go — and not just because socialists shouldn’t be in the Trump administration (or any U.S. government position). His ideology denies kids who are on the verge of dying the opportunity to live.
Earlier this month, Prasad rejected two potential treatments for devastating childhood diseases: Duchenne muscular dystrophy and Sanfilippo syndrome.
The life expectancy for a Duchenne patient is 22 years. In the process, it destroys a child’s muscles and causes neurological deficiencies.
Sanfilippo syndrome, often called “childhood Alzheimer’s," is fatal. Few children live beyond their early teens, accompanied with cognitive, functional, and muscle decline.
Take Sadie, for example, a little girl who is currently battling Sanfilippo syndrome. Her website, "Saving Sadie Rae," tells her story. She is an adorable, perky little fairy princess, adored by her family (and her Instagram fans) and is in the process of dying from Sanfilippo.
Her parents are loving, dedicated caregivers, and her mother is on a mission to encourage the FDA to reverse its decision that, to parents like Sadie’s, is a blinking red light that says, “We don’t care about your kid.”
Although the FDA has delayed its final decision until at least next year, Sadie’s parents, along with others, are painfully aware: Their kids don’t have time to wait.
Duchenne and Sanfilippo parents are just regular people. They aren’t doctors or lobbyists. They're ordinary people facing an unimaginable situation, and they’re desperate for hope. They want the FDA to move forward with promising treatments.
In a recent conversation I had with former FDA Associate Commissioner Peter Pitts, who works closely with the Duchenne muscular dystrophy community, he expressed frustration with the agency.
In recent years, the FDA has thankfully begun to listen more carefully to the parents of children with orphan diseases, meaning that they are rare but devastating. This does not throw regulatory science out the window, but gives a voice to parents willing to accept higher risks for what the FDA might view as tertiary benefits of new therapeutics — because the alternative and end point is early death.
Pitts continued:
The question of "what is the risk tolerance" of this community has been made abundantly clear by the community itself — parents are willing to accept higher risks to potentially provide less suffering and longer life for their children. That begs the question whether Dr. Prasad’s well-known dislike of the pharmaceutical industry — often in lockstep with Democrat talking points — has trumped the wishes of the disease community — and with callous disregard for the quality of life for children suffering with Duchenne or Sanfilippo syndrome. That’s almost too awful to comprehend.
Although the developer of the Sanfilippo treatment claims it has “robust” confirmation of efficacy, FDA bureaucrats fussed about its manufacturing procedures, which the company says are unrelated to the quality of the gene therapy.
Is this genuine concern or just an excuse?
RELATED: HHS surmounts obstacles set by Democrat-appointed judges, gives thousands of bureaucrats the boot
Similarly, when rejecting the Duchenne cell therapy, the FDA insisted that the biotech company provide more "substantial evidence of effectiveness." But the real evidence that matters is that children and young adults are suffering and dying without treatment.
Technology, bioengineering, and gene therapy are blessings of hope for every family and patient suffering from orphan diseases.
Bureaucrats should not let political agendas or indecision get in the way of potentially lifesaving decisions when parents of terminally ill children are more than willing to accept the high risk under President Trump’s “right to try” initiative or any other FDA-approved protocols. They pray these treatments will help their children, but they fully understand that they might also only benefit future children with these diseases.
That level of selflessness should be considered by the FDA when making these decisions.
Parents of children with fatal orphan diseases have written the FDA an unequivocal permission slip. Perhaps under new leadership at the Medical and Scientific Office, it will finally take this hall pass and run with it — on behalf of children who can’t.
While many regard Zohran Mamdani as a Democratic rising star, fault lines are beginning to emerge between the mayoral hopeful and the party establishment.
Mamdani emerged as the frontrunner in New York City's mayoral primary in June, securing a healthy lead over disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo (D). Although some New York progressives came out in support of the self-proclaimed socialist, top Democrats have not welcomed him with open arms.
'If Team Gentrification wants a primary fight, our response will be forceful and unrelenting.'
RELATED: Exclusive: Vance on Mamdani: ‘Who the hell does he think that he is?’
Throughout the mayoral race, Congress' top New York Democrats have withheld from endorsing Mamdani altogether. Both House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have refrained from explicitly supporting Mamdani, although both congratulated him after winning his primary.
"Congratulations to Zohran Mamdani on a decisive primary victory," Jeffries said in a post on X. "Assemblyman Mamdani ran a strong campaign that relentlessly focused on the economy and bringing down the high cost of living in New York City. We spoke this morning and plan to meet in Central Brooklyn shortly."
"I have known Mamdani since we worked together to provide debt relief for thousands of beleaguered taxi drivers & fought to stop a fracked gas plant in Astoria," Schumer said in a post on X. "He ran an impressive campaign that connected with New Yorkers about affordability, fairness, & opportunity."
Notably, neither of these statements included endorsements.
RELATED: Tom Homan sends warning to socialist NYC candidate over sanctuary city status: 'Good luck on that'
Since Mamdani's decisive victory, tensions have ramped up. Progressives have increasingly pushed primary threats, with some of Mamdani's allies, like the Democratic Socialists of America, reportedly eyeing Jeffries' seat.
“His leadership has left a vacuum that organizations like DSA are filling," Gustavo Gordillo, co-chair of the NYC DSA, told CNN. "I think that is more important right now."
Jeffries' team promptly hit back at Mamdani's allies, whom they called "Team Gentrification," saying they will teach challengers a "painful lesson."
“Leader Hakeem Jeffries is focused on taking back the House from the MAGA extremists who just ripped health care away from millions of Americans,” André Richardson, Jeffries' senior adviser, told CNN.
“However, if Team Gentrification wants a primary fight, our response will be forceful and unrelenting. We will teach them and all of their incumbents a painful lesson on June 23, 2026,” Richardson added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Donald Trump, now in his second term, has executed a political masterstroke — cornering Democrats into the unpopular side of nearly every 80/20 issue. From transgender athletes in women’s sports and the DOGE to the airstrike on Iran’s nuclear sites, he’s boxed them in. But Trump isn’t the Democrats’ biggest threat. Their worst enemy is themselves — and the radical candidates they continue to put forward.
The truth is that the left has always flirted with the absurd. Leftists rant that the rich must “pay their fair share,” but can’t define what “fair” means. They champion equity over equality and preach that government handouts — not markets — will lift the poor and working class. This worldview teeters between naivete and madness.
The Democratic Party isn’t just drifting — it’s accelerating toward the cliff. And no one pushed the Democrats. They drove themselves.
Then came 2018, when “the Squad” stormed Congress and dragged the party from the edge of absurdity into full-blown lunacy.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — raised in a comfortable New York suburb — rebranded herself as “Alex from the block” in the Bronx. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota dismissed 9/11 as “some people did something” and still won a seat in Congress. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan was censured — by both parties — for chanting “from the river to the sea” after Hamas massacred Jews on Oct. 7, 2023. In 2020, Jamaal Bowman of New York joined their ranks and was later caught on video pulling a Capitol fire alarm to delay a budget vote. His excuse? He thought it would “unlock a door.”
Some Squad members have lost re-election bids, but the core group marches on, peddling the Green New Deal, defunding police, and attending Fighting Oligarchy rallies via private jet.
Meanwhile, Soros-backed prosecutors decriminalize shoplifting, eliminate cash bail, and release repeat offenders. These are not policy missteps — they are self-inflicted wounds. And Republicans couldn’t ask for better material.
Enter Zohran Mamdani — the 33-year-old Democratic Socialist running for New York City mayor. His platform makes Bernie Sanders look centrist.
Mamdani wants to defund police, make New York a sanctuary city, and jack up the minimum wage to $30 an hour. He calls for rent freezes, free buses, and city-run grocery stores — as if the Soviet model didn’t already prove that government-run markets lead to scarcity and dysfunction.
RELATED: Vance on Mamdani: ‘Who the hell does he think that he is?’
Even more alarming is his plan to “shift the tax burden” from homeowners in the outer boroughs to “richer and whiter neighborhoods.” That’s not policy — that’s race-based redistribution.
And his foreign policy? Mamdani wants to “globalize the intifada.” That’s a genocidal rallying cry, and New York’s Jewish community should treat it like the five-alarm fire it is.
So can the Democrats still correct course? Can the party of JFK and FDR find its footing again?
One glimmer of sanity remains: Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. Despite his hoodie-and-shorts aesthetic, to say nothing of the stroke that nearly killed him in 2022, he has emerged as a lonely voice of reason. He has called out the party’s excesses. But will anyone listen? Or will the Democrats toss him aside for failing the purity test?
The Democratic Party isn’t just drifting — it’s accelerating toward the cliff. And no one pushed the Democrats. They drove themselves.
Small towns are plagued like big blue cities with a tight network of media, progressive political operatives, and dark money pushing leftism.
www.theblaze.com