News

Black Conservatives Torch the Smithsonian’s Assault on Black American History [WATCH]
News

Black Conservatives Torch the Smithsonian’s Assault on Black American History [WATCH]

/

The Smithsonian National Museum of American History is facing fierce criticism from Black conservatives who say the institution has traded honest education for ideological propaganda.

Bishop Earl Walker Jackson, an author, commentator, and descendant of enslaved Americans, argues that the museum now presents the nation through a relentlessly hostile lens, as reported by Red State.

Jackson rejects the leftist habit of reducing the American experience to race, class, grievance, and oppression.

His family history includes great-grandparents who were enslaved, yet he still recognizes the extraordinary freedom and opportunity available to Americans today.

“This is a wonderful country; it’s the greatest nation on earth.”

That message is apparently too hopeful for cultural gatekeepers who prefer portraying the United States as an endless crime scene populated by permanent victims and hereditary villains.

Jackson said that “if you were born an American, you hit the proverbial lottery because you have more opportunity and hope than any people living anywhere else on the planet.”

His gratitude directly challenges a political industry that depends upon keeping Americans divided, suspicious, and angry.

The controversy intensified after the White House accused the Smithsonian of “ideological capture.”

That charge brought renewed attention from Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have begun examining how a taxpayer-supported institution presents the Founding Fathers, slavery, race, immigration, gender, sexuality, and economic inequality.

In July, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency held hearings connected to a 162-page report titled “Rewriting American History: Examining the Smithsonian’s Efforts to Reshape the Past.”

The White House Domestic Policy Council issued the report on July 4.

According to the report, the National Museum of American History has increasingly minimized the founders while filtering major events through fashionable progressive theories.

Instead of giving visitors historical context, the museum allegedly pushes conclusions about systemic injustice and social justice activism.

Museum director Dr. Anthea Hartig received particular scrutiny during the congressional hearing.

Her responses did little to reassure critics who believe the museum has wandered far beyond education and entered the business of political instruction.

Hartig has openly embraced the language of reparations, restorative justice, and historical correction.

Under that approach, radical Marxist activist Angela Davis can be elevated as a feminist icon while Mickey Mouse is dragged into racial politics because Steamboat Willie supposedly reflects “blackface minstrelry.”

That is not sober historical scholarship. It is ideology dressed in museum credentials, funded by the public, and displayed to visitors from around the world as though progressive interpretation were settled fact.

Hartig reportedly receives $370,000 annually while overseeing this transformation of a national institution.

Americans have every right to ask why their money should finance exhibits that appear more interested in condemning the country than explaining its complicated and triumphant history.

Jackson is hardly alone in objecting to this grievance-centered narrative.

Many Black conservatives acknowledge the horrors of slavery and discrimination while refusing to accept the absurd claim that America is defined only by its sins.

John Allante McAuley, a former candidate for Philadelphia Republican chairman, visited the President’s House Slave Exhibit after activists accused the Trump administration of whitewashing slavery.

His assessment challenged the familiar outrage script promoted by liberal activists and their media allies.

“Once again, you have Black liberals doing the bidding of white liberals here, and they want to keep you angry.” McAuley also warned, “They want to keep us angry, they want to keep us hating America.”

That anger is politically useful because citizens who believe America belongs to them will defend it, improve it, and preserve it.

Citizens taught that the nation is irredeemably evil are easier to recruit into movements determined to dismantle its institutions and traditions.

McAuley also said, “There’s no accountability being taught.”

His broader argument is that historical slavery should be understood fully, including the role of Africans in the slave trade, but should not become an all-purpose excuse for present failures.

American history contains cruelty, courage, injustice, sacrifice, failure, and redemption.

Removing any part distorts the record, but forcing every event through a single lens of oppression destroys the larger national story just as surely as ignoring slavery would.

The Trump administration is right to demand accountability from the Smithsonian and insist that national museums return to factual history.

Black conservatives who refuse the left’s permanent victimhood narrative are making clear that America is their inheritance too, and they will not surrender it to professional grievance merchants.

Lockheed Martin Unveils Strigo Missile Storefront to Slash Fielding Time
News

Lockheed Martin Unveils Strigo Missile Storefront to Slash Fielding Time

/

Lockheed Martin unveiled Strigo on Monday, launching a modular family of missile and sensor hardware built to move critical weapons technology from the drawing board into the field at a much faster pace.

The effort includes a dedicated product center intended to give military customers quicker access to mature or nearly mature systems.

The Strigo portfolio covers radio frequency sensors, missile datalinks and seeker technologies.

Each component is built around a common baseline architecture, allowing engineers to adapt existing hardware instead of starting every new requirement from scratch.

According to Lockheed, that shared foundation can support several mission sets, including air defense, missile defense and air to surface strikes.

The concept gives customers room to reconfigure hardware as threats, targets and operational demands change.

Lockheed describes the Strigo Product Center as a storefront for “ready-now and near-ready” equipment that can be tailored to specific customer requirements.

In plain English, the company wants proven parts waiting on the shelf before military planners come knocking.

That approach could reduce the time and expense involved in developing new weapons, especially when compared with traditional programs that can spend years trapped in studies, redesigns and paperwork.

Lockheed also said modularity should lower life cycle costs, although it did not provide estimated savings or specific dollar figures.

The company has invested $250 million of its own money in the product center so far. That is a substantial corporate bet on faster production at a time when the United States needs deeper munitions stockpiles and a more responsive industrial base.

The center was established less than two years ago, but Lockheed said it has already carried multiple concepts from initial design through testing.

Company officials claim the operation can turn an early sketch into a tested solution within months rather than years.

In some cases, the product center can have components available before the military formally requests them. That could give the Army and other services more options when urgent battlefield needs emerge and lengthy procurement schedules are simply not good enough.

Stacy Kubicek, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin Sensors and Global Sustainment, said early research is central to the center’s strategy.

She said the model allows Lockheed to “test and deploy new solutions at unprecedented speed,” rather than waiting for every detail of a future requirement.

Kubicek added, “That’s how we turn ‘what if’ into ‘what’s next’ faster than ever before.” It is a polished corporate line, but the underlying objective is serious because American troops need weapons on launchers, not promises buried inside another decade of PowerPoint slides.

Lockheed said technology from the Strigo family contributed to the Increment 2 seeker package for the Army’s Precision Strike Missile.

The Precision Strike Missile is replacing the aging Army Tactical Missile System and is expected to provide greater reach and improved targeting capability.

The Increment 2 seeker places a sensor in the missile’s nose that can locate and track a target during the final phase of flight.

That capability is especially important against moving or relocatable targets that may not remain where intelligence first spotted them.

Lockheed conducted the first flight of Increment 2 in March, with the missile traveling 350 kilometers, or more than 217 miles. The flight gathered performance data, although the company did not report an intercept or provide extensive details about the test results.

Strigo is also part of a broader Lockheed campaign to show it can produce weapons faster and at lower cost. In March, the company opened a Rapid Fielding Center that combines prototype construction and early production runs under one roof as part of wider factory expansion and modernization plans.

In July, Lockheed introduced the PAC 3 ACE, a Patriot interceptor the company says will cost less than half as much as the PAC 3 MSE.

Those efforts support the Pentagon’s Arsenal of Freedom push to expand the American munitions industrial base after years of slow production and dangerously thin inventories.

For all the confident language, Lockheed’s announcement left several major questions unanswered.

The company did not disclose the Strigo Product Center’s location, workforce size, organizational structure, contracts, customers or firm delivery schedules beyond its reference to the Precision Strike Missile.

That lack of detail means Strigo will ultimately be judged by hardware delivered, tests completed and production capacity added.

Still, a modular storefront backed by $250 million offers a promising answer to an old procurement problem: getting useful weapons into American hands before the threat has already changed.

Battle Tested USS Thomas Hudner Returns Home After Caribbean Blockade and Iran War
News

Battle Tested USS Thomas Hudner Returns Home After Caribbean Blockade and Iran War

/

The USS Thomas Hudner returned to Naval Station Mayport, Florida, this weekend after a demanding deployment lasting more than eight months.

The Arleigh Burke class destroyer and its 300 sailors came home after supporting major American combat operations across two critical regions.

The warship departed Mayport on Dec. 1 and initially sailed south toward the Caribbean. There, it joined a sizable American naval force assembled as Washington tightened pressure on the Venezuelan regime.

American ships enforced the blockade of Venezuela by pursuing and seizing oil tankers attempting to move through the region. Those operations preceded the January 2026 strike on Caracas that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The Thomas Hudner did not remain in the Caribbean for long. In February, the Navy shifted the destroyer and several other vessels to the Middle East, including the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford.

Once inside the Fifth Fleet area of responsibility, the Thomas Hudner joined the opening strikes of Operation Epic Fury, the Pentagon’s name for the war against Iran.

The guided missile destroyer launched several Tomahawk land attack missiles at Iranian targets during the conflict’s first month.

By early summer, the destroyer was operating in the Red Sea before moving back into the eastern Mediterranean. From there, the battle tested ship finally began the welcome journey home to Florida.

“I just can’t say enough about how amazing this crew is, all 300 of them, true American Patriots. We’ve been gone for nine months, a long time, and pulling in this morning here to Mayport to see our friends and family is just surreal and the best feeling in the world,” Cmdr. David Cook said.

That homecoming capped a deployment filled with real world missions rather than ceremonial cruising and polished talking points.

The crew conducted blockade operations, supported a regime capture mission, and fired precision weapons during a major regional war.

Arleigh Burke class destroyers remain essential to American naval power because they can conduct air defense, strike missions, maritime security, and fleet protection. When trouble erupts, these heavily armed ships are routinely among the first assets sent toward it.

The Thomas Hudner has become particularly familiar with high stakes deployments and dangerous waters. Several American destroyers remain positioned around the Red Sea and Arabian Sea as combat operations involving Iran continue.

This latest Middle East mission marked the second time in recent years that the Thomas Hudner participated in fighting connected to Iran.

Last summer, the ship deployed as American forces worked to destroy Iranian missiles aimed at Israel during the 12 Day War.

During that operation, the destroyer coordinated with American ground based air defense systems to counter the Iranian threat.

The mission demonstrated how naval and land forces can work together to defend allies and deny Tehran an easy path to escalation.

The ship also served in the United States Central Command area beginning in late 2023. It became one of the first Navy vessels to engage Houthi militants in the Red Sea, intercepting drones and missiles launched toward commercial shipping near Yemen.

Those exchanges grew into roughly a year and a half of fighting as the Houthis repeatedly threatened merchant vessels and international sea lanes.

The Thomas Hudner’s role placed its sailors near the front edge of a campaign critical to protecting global commerce and freedom of navigation.

As the Iran war continued through two ceasefires, renewed fighting, and another American blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, some ships with lengthy deployments started heading home. The Gerald R. Ford returned to Norfolk, Virginia, in May after also operating in the Caribbean and Middle East.

The Ford and its carrier strike group received the Presidential Unit Citation for their performance during the extended deployment.

Meanwhile, the United States continues maintaining substantial naval power near the Middle East, anchored by the carriers USS Abraham Lincoln and USS George H.W. Bush.

For the Thomas Hudner’s sailors, however, the immediate mission is reunion with families after months spent in contested waters.

They returned with a record that reflects exactly what American sea power is supposed to deliver: presence, precision, endurance, and decisive force when ordered.

Judge Freezes Mamdani’s Chaotic Luxury Tax and Wipes Away His Homeowner Shame List [WATCH]
News

Judge Freezes Mamdani’s Chaotic Luxury Tax and Wipes Away His Homeowner Shame List [WATCH]

/

Big Apple homeowners scored an early courtroom victory Monday after a judge blocked Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s chaotic rollout of New York City’s new luxury second home tax, as reported by The New York Post.

The temporary ruling puts the socialist mayor’s prized levy on ice while furious property owners press their case.

Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Wayne Ozzi issued a temporary restraining order preventing the city from acting on 17,000 notices mailed by the Department of Finance.

The pause will remain in place until at least an August 31 hearing.

Those notices warned homeowners that they could face tax bills reaching five figures unless they applied for exemptions.

For residents suddenly ordered to prove their homes are actually their homes, City Hall’s concept of fairness apparently came with paperwork and a deadline.

Mamdani quickly vowed to challenge the ruling and revive his tax campaign.

His spokesman Matt Rauschenbach insisted, “We disagree with today’s ruling, but we are confident in both the pied à terre surcharge and the City’s ability to implement it fairly and effectively.”

The tax was approved by state lawmakers and Governor Kathy Hochul during the spring.

It applies to one- to three-family homes valued at $5 million or more, along with cooperative apartments and condominiums valued at $1 million or more, when those properties are unoccupied and not primary residences.

The legal setback arrived only hours after Hochul urged Mamdani to clean up the confused rollout.

“We’re not responsible for the rollout,” Hochul told reporters at an unrelated Bronx event, before adding, “We’ll encourage City Hall to try and streamline this.”

That was a convenient bit of distance from a governor who previously championed the tax as a way to make wealthy foreign property owners pay more.

Hochul still supports the levy, but her office now says questions about administering it belong to City Hall and the courts.

The trouble began when city officials published a database containing more than 900,000 homeowners who might be affected.

Mamdani had warned wealthy residents to check their mail, but the sprawling list swept in scores of confused New Yorkers whose properties appeared to fall outside the law.

City Hall then mailed 17,000 notices telling recipients they would be taxed unless they secured exemptions.

Instead of using available state records to identify qualifying properties, the administration effectively shifted the burden onto homeowners and told them to prove their innocence to the tax collectors.

Three homeowners responded with a lawsuit filed Friday, arguing that the bungled process “caused mass confusion.”

They said officials ignored extensive state data that lawmakers had specifically made available for determining which properties could legitimately face the surcharge.

Plaintiffs Rachel O’Brien and Carmine Morano are Staten Island residents whose homes appeared on the published list. Morano is the father of City Councilman Frank Morano, while O’Brien is the councilman’s wife.

The third plaintiff, Chelsea resident and declared Mamdani supporter Simon Hedley, received one of the mailed notices.

His exemption was approved after he uploaded a tax return Saturday, one day after joining the lawsuit, showing that even the mayor’s own supporters can get caught in City Hall’s bureaucratic net.

City attorneys said the Department of Finance had received 3,801 challenges to its initial primary residence determinations.

They argued that pausing the process could delay nearly 8,000 appeals and prevent corrected information from appearing on November tax bills.

Ozzi was not persuaded and temporarily sided with the homeowners.

His order requires the city to remove the online list of roughly 900,000 taxpayers and bars officials from taking further action based on either the database or the mailed notices.

Hedley welcomed the ruling while acknowledging that officials responded quickly after he submitted his documents.

“Hopefully, they can take the opportunity to roll things out a bit more smoothly,” he said regarding the approaching court hearing.

The homeowners are represented by Randy Mastro, who served as first deputy mayor under former Mayor Eric Adams.

Before the ruling, Mamdani joked, “There are a few things more certain in New York City than death, taxes and Randy Mastro filing a lawsuit against this administration.”

This time, however, Mastro delivered a clear setback to City Hall.

“We are very gratified by the judge’s decision, which has vindicated the rights of hundreds of thousands of New York City homeowners who were subjected to a process they never should have been a part of in the first place,” he said.

DSA Radical Crumbles When Asked Where Rapists Go After Prison Abolition [WATCH]
News

DSA Radical Crumbles When Asked Where Rapists Go After Prison Abolition [WATCH]

/

A Democratic Socialists of America official was confronted with one of the most obvious questions imaginable about abolishing prisons.

When asked what society would do with rapists after jails disappear, she offered talking points instead of an answer.

Frances Gill, a member of the DSA National Political Committee, appeared for an interview with NBC 4 Los Angeles anchor Conan Nolan

. The discussion covered policing, immigration, public safety, and the radical policy demands promoted by the socialist organization.

Nolan pressed Gill on what defunding the police would actually mean outside the comfortable world of activist slogans and academic theory.

That is where the conversation began exposing the enormous holes in the DSA vision for public safety.

Gill declared, “What we really want to see is a horizon where folks are not reliant on armed enforcement to meet our public safety needs,” presenting a vague aspiration instead of a functioning plan.

Nice language may impress a campus seminar, but it does not stop violent predators.

Nolan then noted that the DSA website calls for defunding police while also supporting the elimination of prisons and jails.

Gill confirmed that those sweeping goals accurately reflected the organization’s agenda, leaving the obvious question of what replaces those institutions.

The anchor made the issue personal and painfully clear by asking, “So if my daughter is assaulted and raped, is there any agency that would seek to find her assailant and bring him to justice?”

Gill initially claimed that someone would, but provided no identifiable agency or process.

Nolan immediately followed with the question that dismantled the entire sales pitch.

“What would it be if not police and where would he be if not a jail?” he asked, forcing the socialist activist to face the practical consequences of her own position.

Gill responded, “So I guess I really want to avoid getting caught into these hypotheticals and talk about the reality that we’re actually facing right now,” retreating to a familiar political escape hatch.

WATCH:

Apparently, violent crime becomes a mere hypothetical when it threatens a cherished leftist slogan.

The problem is that rape, murder, assault, and other serious crimes are not theoretical concerns dreamed up by conservative critics.

They happen every day, and innocent people depend on law enforcement officers, prosecutors, courts, jails, and prisons to identify dangerous offenders and remove them from society.

If an organization wants to abolish the institutions responsible for investigating criminals and holding them, it has an obligation to explain the replacement.

Refusing to answer does not make the question unfair; it reveals that the activists demanding revolutionary change have not considered the most basic consequences.

This is the flaw behind so many radical DSA proposals.

They sound bold when presented to friendly audiences, but they collapse the moment someone asks how they would work in an actual community filled with real families, real victims, and real criminals.

People who rape and murder cannot simply be redirected toward social services and trusted to behave.

A civilized society has a duty to protect law abiding citizens, and that includes locking dangerous offenders away when the evidence proves their guilt.

The interview produced another remarkable revelation when Gill disclosed that she carries more than $500,000 in student loan debt.

WATCH:

Someone buried beneath that staggering obligation still wants the public to trust socialist activists with sweeping decisions about economics, policing, and the structure of American society.

Half a million dollars in student debt raises its own set of questions about judgment, accountability, and who is expected to pay the bill.

The socialist answer usually ends with taxpayers being ordered to clean up somebody else’s financial decisions.

The exchange offered a sharp reminder that slogans are not policies and ideological wishes are not public safety plans.

When Nolan asked where a rapist would go without police or jail, the DSA representative had every opportunity to explain, yet the promised socialist future suddenly had no answer.

WATCH:

‘Disliking Islam Doesn’t Make You Islamophobic, It Makes You a Decent Person’: Josh Seiter [WATCH]
News

‘Disliking Islam Doesn’t Make You Islamophobic, It Makes You a Decent Person’: Josh Seiter [WATCH]

/

Commentator Josh Seiter criticized Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed during a recent discussion, arguing that voters should closely examine what he described as the candidate’s political and religious beliefs before casting their ballots.

Seiter framed his remarks as a broader criticism of the Democratic Party, contending that its messaging often relies on language that means the opposite of what he believes it conveys.

“Well, it’s very Orwellian, which the Democrats are expert at using this newspeak, where they always say a word means the opposite of what it actually does.”

He said that, in his view, voters should draw conclusions from the language used by Democratic candidates.

“So you can actually infer and deduce from this that he is the opposite of practical.”

Seiter continued by criticizing what he described as the ideological direction of the Democratic Party.

“And like most Democrats and leftists, he’s a lunatic.”

He then broadened his criticism to issues involving gender identity, saying:

“Look, these people think that men in dresses are women…”

Turning specifically to El-Sayed, Seiter expressed his opinion about Islam and argued that the candidate’s faith should be a consideration for voters.

“And obviously El Sayed subscribes to a religion that has a problem with democracy, equality, consent, the West, dogs, women, bacon, and art.”

Seiter argued that opposition to a Muslim candidate should not automatically be viewed as anti-Muslim prejudice.

“And so, disliking a Muslim candidate doesn’t make you Islamophobic. It makes you a decent human being.”

He said voters should evaluate both El-Sayed’s religious beliefs and his personal views before making a decision at the ballot box.

“And so I think people should know where El Sayid stands, both in his religion and his personal life.”

According to Seiter, he believes a candidate’s religious convictions can influence political decision-making.

“And it’s natural to infer that you know these are the things that instruct him, and it’s his moral compass.”

Seiter argued that voters should consider what they believe a candidate’s values would mean in public office.

“So if you want to elect someone that you know believes it that democracy, equality, consent, bacon, and dogs are noxious, and that women shouldn’t have equal rights. Then you should vote for the guy.”

He contrasted that position with what he believes should motivate those who disagree.

“If you don’t like those things, you should oppose him because he’s not practical.”

Seiter concluded his remarks with another criticism of El-Sayed and the political movement he believes the candidate represents.

“He’s a lunatic that is in a leftist Islamic cult.”

WATCH:

Throughout his comments, Seiter argued that voters should carefully examine the beliefs and values of candidates seeking public office.

His remarks reflected his personal opinions about the Democratic Party, Islam, and El-Sayed’s candidacy, while urging voters to weigh those considerations before the election.

WATCH:

Move Over Florida Man: Phoenix Man Robs the Shake Shack Where He Works… Finds Out… [WATCH]
News

Move Over Florida Man: Phoenix Man Robs the Shake Shack Where He Works… Finds Out… [WATCH]

/

Some criminal schemes are complicated enough to keep detectives guessing for months.

Then there is the Arizona Shake Shack employee accused of robbing his own workplace and casually returning two days later, apparently expecting the regular schedule to continue.

Authorities say Keondre Simmons, 33, decided his normal paycheck was not enough.

Prosecutors allege he entered the Shake Shack where he worked and attempted to “give himself a raise,” through a method that was neither legal nor especially clever.

The robbery reportedly unfolded Monday, August 3, at the Shake Shack near Scottsdale and Greenway Road.

Simmons allegedly entered through a rear door while carrying a semiautomatic handgun, giving him access to coworkers who presumably recognized him.

According to prosecutors, Simmons forced one coworker into a walk in cooler at gunpoint.

He then allegedly ordered the manager to open the restaurant safe and surrender approximately $2,800 in cash.

Authorities say Simmons locked the employees inside the cooler before leaving.

He is also accused of taking and destroying their cellphones, then destroying the restaurant landline in what appears to have been a truly inspired effort to make telephones themselves responsible for police work.

Smashing the phones might have delayed an emergency call, but it did not erase witnesses, workplace records, schedules, security evidence, or the awkward fact that the alleged robber worked there.

Details like those tend to complicate even the finest criminal “master plans.”

Perhaps Simmons should have spent some time watching “The First 48,” or “Forensic Files,” before allegedly launching his grand operation.

Even casual viewers understand that robbing the place where everyone knows your face creates certain investigative challenges.

The most remarkable decision, however, came after the alleged robbery.

Simmons reportedly returned to the same Shake Shack just two days later, as though stealing thousands of dollars at gunpoint was merely an inconvenient shift dispute.

Police arrested Simmons on Wednesday, August 5, in the restaurant parking lot.

Yes, the accused robber allegedly came back to the exact location where authorities say he had threatened two coworkers, locked them in a cooler, destroyed communications equipment, and fled with cash.

WATCH:

One can only imagine the confidence required to stroll back into that environment.

Either Simmons believed investigators had abandoned the case, or he assumed destroying several phones had somehow caused law enforcement to vanish from the face of Arizona.

Officials said Simmons was unhappy about being taken into custody, which is hardly surprising.

Criminal suspects rarely enjoy the consequences portion of the program, especially when those consequences arrive outside the same workplace they allegedly robbed.

Authorities also said Simmons confessed to the location of the handgun allegedly used during the robbery.

Police recovered the weapon, adding another significant piece of evidence to a case that apparently did not require Sherlock Holmes levels of deduction.

The allegations remain subject to the court process, but the reported sequence is astonishingly straightforward.

An employee allegedly robbed his own restaurant, terrorized coworkers who knew him, attempted to eliminate their communications, and then returned to work within roughly forty eight hours.

There is bold criminal behavior, and then there is walking directly back to the scene while investigators are still working the case.

The latter strategy tends to produce less freedom and more uncomfortable conversations with officers carrying handcuffs.

People should enjoy life, make responsible choices, and perhaps “Touch grass,” as the saying goes.

Just do not allegedly rob your own employer and return two days later expecting everyone to forget, because stupid games still produce stupid prizes.

Islamic Terrorist Organization Cheers Abdul El-Sayed Win [WATCH]
News

Islamic Terrorist Organization Cheers Abdul El-Sayed Win [WATCH]

/

Conservative commentator Jeffrey Mead is raising alarms after the Muslim Brotherhood’s official website publicly celebrated the victory of Abdullah Sayed in a Michigan Democratic primary.

In a recent statement, Mead pointed directly to the group’s online presence as evidence of deeper ideological alignment.

“So this right here is the Muslim Brotherhood’s website, and this is them celebrating Abdullah Sayed’s win in the Democratic primary,” Mead said.

He then detailed the organization’s core ideology, reading from materials that outline its foundational beliefs.

“Now, the Muslim Brotherhood’s-I’m going to read you a little bit about it. So, its central belief is that Islam is a complete system for governing every aspect of life-personal, social, economic, legal, and political-and that Muslim societies must return to rule by Islamic law, Sharia,” Mead explained.

He continued by citing the group’s classic motto: “The group’s classic motto is Allah is our objective, the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way, and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

Mead emphasized the Brotherhood’s patient, long-term strategy.

“And they pursue a lot of these things primarily through gradualism, building parallel social institutions, schools, clinics, charities, professional associations, and political participation when possible, while maintaining a longer goal for Islamic order.”

According to Mead, this methodical approach allows the organization to expand influence within democratic systems while never abandoning its ultimate objective of establishing Sharia governance.

The commentator did not stop at ideology. He highlighted the group’s documented track record of violence.

“But also, you should know the Muslim Brotherhood has a documented history of involvement in political violence, assassinations, bombings, and the creation or support of armed offshoots. For example, Hamas was founded as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Mead described Hamas in stark terms.

“And again, if you don’t know who Hamas is, they are a genocidal terrorist organization in Gaza. And on October 7 of 2023, they went into Israel and indiscriminately slaughtered civilians and took civilians hostage, and when I say indiscriminately slaughtered, I mean indiscriminately like targeted them and slaughtered them. It wasn’t like a collateral damage. It was like we’re here, we know you’re unarmed, and we want to kill you, and we’re going to kill you. This is part of our mission. They see terrorism as a legitimate way of doing things.”

Returning to the Michigan race, Mead connected the dots.

“But again, now back to the Muslim Brotherhood. Their long-term goal is for societies to be governed by Sharia, and again, when Abdul Al Sayed won the primary in Michigan, the Muslim Brotherhood was on their website celebrating this. If he wasn’t on their team or wouldn’t be furthering their cause, I doubt they would be celebrating him being the winner of that democratic primary. Something to think about.”

WATCH:

Mead’s comments arrive amid growing conservative concern over foreign ideological influence in American politics.

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, has long been designated a terrorist organization by several U.S. allies, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

While the group maintains a public face of political participation and social services, critics argue its foundational texts and historical actions reveal a consistent commitment to replacing secular governance with Islamic law.

WATCH:

The celebration of Sayed’s primary win on the Brotherhood’s website has intensified scrutiny of candidates who receive such endorsements or attention.

WATCH:

Mead’s analysis suggests that public praise from an organization openly committed to Sharia and historically linked to groups like Hamas should not be dismissed as insignificant.

For many on the right, the episode serves as a reminder to examine not only candidates’ policy positions but also the external forces that celebrate their successes.

As Michigan voters prepare for the general election, Mead’s pointed remarks have fueled discussion among conservatives about the need for greater vigilance regarding ideological networks seeking to shape American political outcomes.

Indiana RINO Toppled as Trump Backed Challenger Wins Recount by Three Votes [WATCH]
News

Indiana RINO Toppled as Trump Backed Challenger Wins Recount by Three Votes [WATCH]

/

Indiana State Senate incumbent Spencer Deery has lost his Republican primary after a recount handed victory to Paula Copenhaver by only three votes, as reported by Townhall.

The stunning reversal removed a Republican whom conservatives branded a RINO and delivered another win for President Donald Trump.

Copenhaver entered the recount facing an extraordinarily narrow margin following the May 5 primary.

With the race balanced on a handful of ballots, she requested a formal review rather than accepting what initially appeared to be a painful defeat.

That decision paid off. Election officials rejected eight ballots that had originally been counted for Deery, reducing his final total to 6,329 votes and giving Copenhaver the slender advantage she needed.

The result marks a dramatic change from the initial assumption that Deery had barely survived the challenge.

Instead, the incumbent now finds himself on the losing side of a contest decided by fewer votes than many families have seated around the dinner table.

Copenhaver had the backing of Trump, whose endorsement remains a powerful force in Republican primary contests.

For grassroots conservatives, the outcome also served as another warning to GOP lawmakers who believe they can defy the party base without facing consequences.

Deery was among several Indiana state senators who opposed Trump’s effort to redraw the state congressional map before the contentious midterm elections.

That resistance put him directly in the path of a president determined to reshape the Indiana Legislature.

Trump responded by endorsing primary challengers against Republicans who refused to support the redistricting push.

The resulting campaign produced a major political shake-up and placed establishment incumbents on notice that comfortable seats are not guaranteed forever.

The recount supplied the final twist in Deery’s race.

Eight rejected ballots were enough to turn his presumed escape into a three-vote loss, proving once again that every legitimate ballot matters when an election reaches the recount room.

Deery is not conceding quietly. He accused election officials of working to “undermine the will of voters by treating ballots differently based on whether they furthered the president’s political goals.”

That is a serious allegation, but the certified result currently favors Copenhaver.

Deery says he remains confident that Indiana courts will reverse the certification and restore the victory he believed he had secured after the primary.

The legal challenge means the political fight may not be finished. Courts could be asked to review how the disputed ballots were treated and whether election officials properly applied Indiana law during the recount process.

Unless a judge intervenes, however, Copenhaver stands as the Republican nominee and the winner of one of Indiana’s closest primary contests.

Her victory also carries consequences extending well beyond a single State Senate district.

If the result survives court review, Republicans supporting redistricting are expected to have the votes needed to advance a new congressional map during the middle of the decade.

That could significantly alter the political terrain ahead of the midterm elections.

For Trump, the result provides evidence that endorsements and primary pressure can move state legislatures.

Lawmakers who dismissed his redistricting demands are now watching allies lose races and opponents prepare to take their seats.

For Indiana conservatives, the recount represents something more basic.

An incumbent resisted a major Trump priority, faced a serious primary challenger, and discovered that three votes can separate political survival from an abrupt trip home.

The courts may still have their say, but the current scoreboard is unmistakable.

Copenhaver won, Deery lost, and Indiana Republicans inclined to ignore their voters just received a lesson that could not have been delivered more clearly.

Radical Socialist El-Sayed Demands Medicare for All While Wife Rejects It at Her Own Practice [WATCH]
News

Radical Socialist El-Sayed Demands Medicare for All While Wife Rejects It at Her Own Practice [WATCH]

/

Abdul El Sayed has made Medicare for All a defining promise of his Michigan campaign, presenting government controlled health care as the answer for American patients.

Yet his own wife reportedly rejects that system within her psychiatry practice, creating a glaring contrast that voters are unlikely to miss.

El Sayed, who has also embraced the radical ‘Abolish ICE’ slogan, wants the public to trust Washington with sweeping power over medical care.

His family, however, appears far less eager to rely on the same arrangement when operating an actual practice.

That contradiction cuts directly into the credibility of his campaign message.

Politicians can offer grand promises from a podium, but their personal decisions often reveal what they really believe about the policies they want everyone else to accept.

Medicare for All is not a modest adjustment to existing health care programs.

It represents an enormous expansion of federal authority, with taxpayers financing a system in which government officials would wield greater influence over payments, coverage, doctors, and treatment options.

El Sayed is asking Michigan voters to believe that this expansion would improve access and fairness.

The reported policy at his wife’s psychiatry practice raises an obvious question: If government coverage is so reliable and desirable, why is it not good enough for the family business?

That is not a minor campaign detail or a distraction invented by political opponents.

It goes to the heart of whether El Sayed lives according to the principles he promotes when seeking votes, influence, and public power.

Psychiatry practices operate in a difficult corner of the health care system, where reimbursement, administrative burdens, and patient access all carry serious consequences.

Those realities are precisely why the practice’s reported rejection of Medicare matters in evaluating El Sayed’s sweeping promises.

Private medical professionals must balance patient needs with staffing expenses, regulatory demands, paperwork, and payment rates.

A politician can ignore those pressures while delivering a campaign speech, but a functioning practice does not have that luxury.

El Sayed’s pitch depends on convincing voters that government can efficiently manage health care for an entire nation.

The decision associated with his wife’s practice suggests that those closest to him may understand the practical shortcomings of government coverage better than his campaign rhetoric admits.

The episode also follows a familiar progressive pattern.

Left wing candidates demand expansive government programs for everyone else, while their own households, businesses, and professional circles frequently preserve private choices and avoid the consequences of those demands.

Voters have seen this routine before in education, public safety, energy policy, and health care.

The political class praises centralized control in public, then quietly searches for flexibility, quality, and independence when its own interests are involved.

El Sayed may argue that Medicare for All would differ from the current Medicare system.

Even so, his campaign must explain why voters should trust promises about a vastly larger federal program when the existing government structure is apparently unwelcome at his wife’s practice.

The distinction cannot be brushed aside with ideological slogans.

WATCH:

If current payment rules or administrative requirements make Medicare unattractive to providers, expanding federal control could spread those same problems across far more doctors, practices, hospitals, and patients.

Michigan voters deserve a direct explanation instead of another polished lecture about fairness.

El Sayed should address whether his wife’s practice accepts Medicare, why it does not if that is the policy, and how his national plan would avoid similar provider resistance.

The controversy is especially damaging because Medicare for All is not a secondary plank buried in campaign materials.

It is a core element of El Sayed’s political identity and a major part of the case he is making to Michigan voters.

Campaigns are supposed to test judgment, consistency, and honesty before a candidate receives power.

On this issue, El Sayed faces a simple credibility problem that no amount of progressive branding can erase.

If El Sayed wants Americans to surrender more control of their health care to Washington, he should first explain why the system he celebrates is reportedly rejected closer to home.

Until then, Medicare for All looks less like conviction and more like a prescription reserved for everybody else.


Scroll to Top