California’s ‘Perfect Dictatorship’ The Dems’ model for the nation – sustained by illegal voters. by Lloyd Billingsley

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/californias-perfect-dictatorship/

Mario Vargas Llosa, who passed away in April at the age of 89, won the Nobel Prize for literature in 2010. Ten years earlier, the Peruvian novelist (The Time of the Hero, Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter, The War of the End of the World ) gained global attention for speaking the truth to power. In a 1990 conference organized by Octavio Paz, Vargas Llosa proclaimed that “la dictadura perfecta” was not communism, the USSR or Fidel Castro. The “perfect dictatorship” was Mexico.

As the Peruvian understood, a dictatorship is not a nation where there are no elections. A dictatorship is a country where one party never loses, and the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) dominated Mexico since the 1920s. In a practice known as el dedazo, PRI presidents picked their successors, following up their choice with fake elections. In the US state of California, Democrats have established a perfect dictatorship of their own.

Democrats have been in power in Sacramento since 2011 and now hold all major elected offices: Governor (Gavin Newsom), Lt. Gov (Eleni Kounalakis), Secretary of State (Shirley Weber), Attorney General (Rob Bonta), State Treasurer (Fiona Ma) State Controller (Malia Cohen), Insurance Commissioner (Ricardo Lara), and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond. Like all state Democrats, these officials enjoy the support of an imported electorate.

For years, Pew Research pegged the number of illegals in the United States at 11 million. A recent study by scholars at MIT and Yale – conducted before the massive influx under Biden – estimated more than 22 million. So the 11 million figure likely underestimates the number in California alone. In 2019, when state attorney Xavier Becerra announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration, he displayed a sign citing “over ten million immigrants” in California – “immigrants” being code for false-documented persons illegally present in the USA. With illegals, California’s approach has been two steps forward, no steps back.

Under California’s “motor voter” scheme, the DMV automatically registers illegals to vote when they get their driver’s license.

Ian Kingsbury George Mason University’s Disastrous President Gregory Washington has backed racially discriminatory DEI programs and failed to address campus anti-Semitism.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/george-mason-university-president-gregory-washington-dei-anti-semitism

The presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and Cornell, among others, have come under fire or been forced out in recent years for failures of leadership on campus anti-Semitism and racially discriminatory DEI programs. Yet Gregory Washington, the president of George Mason University, has managed to keep his job despite similar failures. Mason may not be an Ivy League school, but anti-Semitism and discrimination are problems at nonelite public universities, too. Washington’s track record warrants his resignation or dismissal.

Mason’s Board of Visitors selected Washington in 2020, just as woke fever was reaching its peak. Upon appointment, Washington committed Mason to being “a national exemplar of antiracism and inclusive excellence.” True to his word, Washington built a gigantic diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracy, with 7.4 DEI staff per 100 tenure-track faculty members. This was the second-highest ratio among the more than 70 universities the Heritage Foundation examined

Despite President Trump’s executive order calling out DEI bureaucracies for promoting illegal discrimination, and a Supreme Court decision prohibiting racial preferences, Washington has refused to scale back his DEI efforts. His commitment to DEI surpasses his concern for the legal liability those activities impose on Mason.

Washington’s ideological commitments also eclipse his obligation to follow the law when it comes to face-coverings worn by campus protesters. Virginia law forbids wearing a mask to conceal one’s identity in public. Courts have upheld that law—created in response to the state’s experience with the KKK—as constitutional, and the state attorney general advised universities to amend their policies to prohibit face-coverings at protests.

All major public universities in Virgina complied—except for George Mason. Instead, it merely requires protesters to show identification upon request, a policy that is impractical to implement and does not actually align with the law. Washington claimed to favor this approach out of concern for free speech, even though courts have ruled that concealing one’s identity during a public protest is not protected speech.

Meantime, anti-Semitic activity at George Mason is on the rise. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has subjected the university to investigation for its failure to protect the civil rights of Jewish students during both the Biden and Trump administrations.

Mason students were arrested for planning anti-Semitic violence in two incidents last year. In the first, police searched the home of two sisters who led the campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, finding an illegal gun and “pro-terror materials, including Hamas and Hezbollah flags and signs that read ‘death to America’ and ‘death to Jews,’” according to the Washington Free Beacon.

Who Is Proud To Be An American?

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/07/03/who-is-proud-to-be-an-american/

The headlines this week have blared about how pride in America has plunged under President Donald Trump. But the Gallup Poll driving all these stories paints a very different picture from the headlines.

What the data actually show is that, not only did pride among Democrats plunge this year, it has been falling for them over the past 23 years – even when the sainted Barack Obama was in the White House.  

In Obama’s first year in office, 78% of Democrats said they were “extremely or very proud” to be an American. But by his last year in office, that share had dropped to 68%.

Not surprisingly, given their hatred of Donald Trump, Democrats’ pride then plunged during Trump’s first term. But even under Joe Biden, only 62% of Democrats could bring themselves to say they were proud to be an American.The Democrats’ growing disdain for their country aligns perfectly with their increasing radicalization – a trend we have been noting here at I&I for years (see, for example, “Don’t Be Surprised By Democrats’ Radical Turn – Fanaticism Is In Their DNA“) and before that at Investor’s Business Daily.

And the fact that only 36% of them say they are proud to be an American today says less about Donald Trump than it does about just how pusillanimous their pride in this country has become.

Qatar Must Not Be Allowed to Play Any Role in Gaza by Khaled Abu Toameh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21725/qatar-role-gaza

Allowing Qatar to be part of an Arab consortium that would replace Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip is essentially placing the alpha-fox in charge of the henhouse.

Al-Jazeera, Qatar’s flagship media network, operates around the clock as a propaganda outlet in the service of Hamas.

After America’s attack on Iran’s nuclear sites on June 22, journalists and those who shape public opinion in Qatar condemned the US and President Donald J. Trump. Al-Jazeera presenters and columnists for Qatar’s government newspapers took to social media to slam the US and Trump, calling him a “brazen liar”, “the leader of a modern crusade”, and a “war criminal”…

“… Israel must be destroyed and eliminated and must disappear. This should be a strategic Arab doctrine. [Operation] Al-Aqsa Flood showed us that the Israelis have no connection to the land….” — Qatari General (ret.) Mubarak Al-Khayreen, X.com, June 22, 2025.

In 2017, [Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates] severed ties with Qatar and imposed a sea, land and air blockade on it. They accused Qatar of supporting various terrorist groups and extremist movements, including the Muslim Brotherhood, and demanded the closure of Al-Jazeera.

Qatar has never abandoned its goal of promoting the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates, including Hamas. Anyone who watches Al-Jazeera (in Arabic) can see that the Gulf state and its media outlets are fully mobilized in favor of Islamist Jihadis engaged in terrorism against Israel and the West.

Qatar cannot be allowed to play any role in the administration of the Gaza Strip.

According to a recent report, the Trump administration is floating the idea of having four Arab states administer the Gaza Strip as part of a ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Iran-backed Palestinian terror group Hamas. On June 26, the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom reported:

“Gaza hostilities will conclude within two weeks, ending conditions will encompass four Arab nations (including Egypt and the United Arab Emirates) to administer the Gaza Strip, replacing the murderous Hamas terrorist organization.”

Although the newspaper did not name the two other Arab countries that would take part in administering the Gaza Strip, there is speculation in the Arab world that one of them is Qatar, which has expressed readiness to help rebuild Gaza after the Hamas-Israel war ends.

Donald Trump, Meet the Twelfth Imam Peter Smith

https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/middle-east/donald-trump-and-the-twelfth-imam/

I am a bit this way but mostly that way on Trump’s strategy on Iran. Mostly unenamoured. Dropping those bunker-buster bombs was an unmitigated good thing. It seems unlikely after the Israel bombardment and Trump’s coup de grâce that the Iranians will be able to get back on the nuclear track very quickly, even if some minor mole in the Pentagon leaked it otherwise. But where to from here? Has anything been lastingly solved? Hardly.

While the mullahs call the shots nothing will change. I get the impression from Trump that he believes the Iranian leaders will get behind a MIGA movement (make Iran great again). Doubt it. He is dealing with religious fanatics who look forward to the end times when Muhammad al-Mahdi, the twelfth imam, will return and make Shia Islam great again.

I trust that someone has educated Trump on Islam. Otherwise, however good his negotiation skills, he is out of his depth. Islamists (i.e., fundamentalist Muslims to which legion the ayatollahs most certainly belong) will lie and cheat with impunity if they believe it is in the interests of protecting and promoting Islam. They are obliged to do so. Quite simply you can’t deal with them on a transactional basis. Netanyahu understands that. That’s why he must be secretly ropeable about Trump’s 12-days war when many more days were required.

An opportunity has been recklessly thrown away. Not only to inflict considerably more damage on Iran’s military apparatus but to trigger a regime change; the only pathway to a lasting peaceful solution. There is no other. Was Trump fearful of being blamed for American casualties if the war continued? I hope not. That would be the most fatal of flaws. There is another explanation. Bad enough but not so bad.

A clue is in Trump’s comment: “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f**k they’re doing.” The expletive is unimportant. What is important is the equivalence he appears to draw between Iran and Israel. Don’t get me wrong. Trump knows where the fault lies. The equivalence he is drawing is a transactional one.

Schumer Flips on Antisemitism by Rafael Medoff

https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/382488/schumer-flips-on-antisemitism/

 Israeli ambassador Abba Eban was greeted by an irritating sight when he rose to speak in Harvard University’s Sanders Hall on a chilly Tuesday evening in the autumn of 1970. A group of anti-­Israel extremists in the gallery had unfurled a banner denouncing “Zionist imperialists” and tried to shout Eban down when he began to speak.

    Half a century later, another group of extremists, including Zohran Mamdani—now the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City—employed similar tactics in their own anti-Israel protests.

    Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has cited Eban’s response to the Israel-haters as a transformative event in his own political life. Schumer’s very different response to the Israel-hater Mamdani reflects his own curious transformation.

    Schumer, who in 1970 was a Harvard undergraduate, was in the audience the night Eban spoke. He was so moved by the ambassador’s rebuke of the radicals that he spoke about it at length in what was arguably the most important speech of his life, delivered on the senate floor in November 2023.

    As Schumer rose to speak that day, anti-Israel protests, often mixing with blatant antisemitism, were erupting on college campuses and beyond. Schumer, who by then was the senate majority leader, was shocked at the refusal of many of his fellow-Democrats to acknowledge that antisemitism was coming from their own political camp.

    The reality, Schumer told his visibly discomfited colleagues, was that the people expressing antisemitism after the October 7 massacres “are in many cases people that most liberal Jewish Americans felt previously were their ideological fellow travelers.” He continued: “The vitriol against Israel in the wake of October 7th is all too often crossing a line into brazen and widespread antisemitism, the likes of which we haven’t seen for generations in this country—­if ever.”

    Sen. Schumer then recalled with admiration the way Ambassador Eban responded to the hecklers in 1970. “Eban pointed his finger up at the protesters in the gallery, and with his Etonian inflection, he calmly but strongly delivered a statement I will never forget,” Schumer recalled. 

    Schumer then quoted Eban’s words: “I am talking to you up there in the gallery. Every time a people gets their statehood, you applaud it. The Nigerians, the Pakistanis, the Zambians, you applaud their getting statehood. There’s only one people, when they gain statehood, who you don’t applaud, you condemn it—­ and that is the Jewish people. We Jews are used to that. We have lived with a double standard through the centuries. There were always things the Jews couldn’t do. . . . Everyone could be a farmer, but not the Jew. Everyone could be a carpenter, but not the Jew. Everyone could move to Moscow, but not the Jew. And everyone can have their own state, but not the Jew. There is a word for that: antisemitism, and I accuse you in the gallery of it.”

    The audience of more than 2,000 “broke into heavy applause,” The Harvard Crimson reported. Young Charles Schumer never forgot that moment.

The myth of Israel’s ‘killing fields’ Reports of the IDF deliberately killing civilians at aid centres are a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Andrew Fox

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/07/01/the-myth-of-israels-killing-fields/

Andrew Fox is a former British Army officer and an associate fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, specialising in defence and the Middle East.

You do not need to invent facts to spread propaganda. You only need to stretch them.

Haaretz’s latest ‘exposé’ on Israeli military conduct in Gaza is a prime case in point. This week, the Jewish State’s oldest daily newspaper reported that soldiers belonging to the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) had ‘deliberately fired’ at Palestinians as they tried to access aid-distribution centres. Since May, these distribution centres have been operated by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation – a private, American-run organisation that is supported by the IDF. Haaretz’s reporting has been repeated, without question, by an almost ubiquitously anti-Israel media.

It is a grim, morally explosive accusation. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Israel Katz say it is ‘malicious’ and ‘designed to defame’. The IDF says it is investigating the allegation, but rejects any claims soldiers were instructed to fire at Palestinians accessing aid.

While the facts aren’t always easy to discern in the fog of war, there are a number of problems with the Haaretz report. The most significant is that the original Hebrew version of the article says something quite different to the widely reported English version. It reports that soldiers were ordered to fire toward crowds, not at them. This is not a subtle difference. ‘Toward’ is what soldiers call warning shots. It is a common practice for militaries, and one the British Army frequently used in Afghanistan. ‘At’ is to fire at a crowd or an individual – in other words, ‘at’ is the preposition you would use if you wanted to accuse the IDF of war crimes, instead of employing a common tactic.

The report has other flaws – flaws that should not be hard to pick up on, even for the untrained eye. The anonymous soldier quoted by Haaretz claims that the IDF has used machine guns, grenade launchers and mortars on unarmed crowds queuing for aid. Yet, according to the source, this ‘killing field’, in which soldiers use ‘everything imaginable’, results in around ‘one [to] five’ deaths a day. One to five deaths a day, in the middle of a war zone, involving thousands of people and countless flashpoints, from the heaviest weapon systems any infantry can bring to bear? That is not a ‘killing field’, unless the IDF are the worst shots in military history. This is clearly not the number of deaths you would expect to see if one of the world’s most advanced militaries had been instructed to target crowds of unarmed civilians with ‘everything imaginable’, as the source does.

Let’s Talk about ‘Proportionality’ By Joan Swirsky

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/07/let_s_talk_about_proportionality.html

“But it’s so disproportionate!” Comment from an Israel loathing liberal.

It’s not often that you have a ready answer for people with whom you disagree.  Usually, you think of the perfect comeback when you wake up at two in the morning.

But as it happened, I simply had the cold, hard facts on my side, so it was almost shooting fish in a barrel to answer this Jew-hating, Israel-loathing liberal.

Do You Remember?

My response to her came in a series of questions.

“Do you remember,” I asked her, “when we watched the entire Iraq War — from 2003 to 2011 — on TV, for years?  And the endless articles and commentaries and news coverage, all day and all night?”

“Of course,” she responded.

“Well, even before that, going back to the sixties, do you remember the years-on end coverage of the Vietnam War — from 1964 to 1973 — and the morning and afternoon and nightly news coverage and commentaries the impassioned anti-war demonstrations across the country protesting this war?”

“You know I do.  I was on the frontline of those protests.  I was with the so-called traitor Jane Fonda all the way!”

“How about the Korean War in the 1950s, which wasn’t covered so extensively on TV — TV was relatively new in that decade — but which a million articles were written about, not to mention the extensive radio commentary?”

“Okay,” she said, “and your point?”

“One more question: How about World War II in the 1940s, when we dropped the bombs, and 140,000 died in Hiroshima and 74,000 died in Nagasaki?”  And that is not to omit the massive, overwhelming loss of life from that war — 70–85 million deaths.

“Stop with the statistics, already!” she blurted out.  “What is your point?”

Nicole Gelinas New York’s Unsettling Mayoral Race Whatever the outcome in November, the city will get (another) highly flawed leader.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/new-york-city-mayoral-race-candidates-voters

Just after midnight on June 25, with the temperature finally down from a 100-degree high to the upper 80s, a hoarse and exhausted-looking Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani addressed a cheering crowd in Queens. Clad in a crisp white shirt under his dark suit and tie, the 33-year-old exulted: “My friends, we have done it. I will be your Democratic nominee for the mayor of New York City.” Indeed, Mamdani had done it—an upstart Democratic Socialists of America member with four years’ experience in office had pulled off a stunning victory in the city’s mayoral primary. From just 7 percent support in January polls, he surged to defeat former governor Andrew M. Cuomo by eight points. Cuomo, backed by tens of millions of dollars from business and real-estate interests and long leading in polls, had expected an easy path to the nomination. The result was the biggest political upset in New York in nearly 25 years—since Michael Bloomberg, running as a Republican after 9/11, edged out Democratic favorite Mark Green as voters chose a businessman over a party stalwart.

It’s understandable that New Yorkers, and observers nationwide, see Mamdani’s victory as a sharp break in city politics. Going back more than three decades, voters have elected pragmatic leaders focused on public safety and economic growth. The exception, Bill de Blasio, benefited from the safety and prosperity created by his immediate predecessors. But the reality is less dramatic: Mamdani won not because voters embraced his self-described socialist agenda of government-run grocery stores and free buses, but because the alternatives were so weak. New Yorkers didn’t reject a centrist—they simply weren’t offered a credible one.

To understand the failure of Mamdani’s rival candidates to inspire, it’s worth looking back at the primary campaign, which began in January and played out across countless forums.

On a Tuesday evening in late May, veteran New York politico Scott Stringer sat in his Manhattan living room, peering into his laptop camera. He spoke confidently and capably about an issue affecting New Yorkers rich and poor: illegal noise. Whether from unpermitted construction or raucous park parties, Stringer argued, noise isn’t just a nuisance, it’s a health hazard—and he proposed enforcement solutions.

One problem: this Zoom forum, hosted by the NYC United Against Noise citizens group, drew fewer than a dozen attendees. The dismal turnout underscored the challenge that New York’s career state and local politicians faced this spring in a long, strange city election: voters barely noticed them. Stringer’s résumé was solid: lifelong Manhattanite, teenage community-board member, two decades in the state assembly, eight years as Manhattan borough president. Most notably, in 2013, he won a citywide election for comptroller against a formidable, well-funded opponent—former governor Eliot Spitzer.

The Persistent Presence of Absence The public school exodus continues unabated. by Larry Sand

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/the-persistent-presence-of-absence/

The fact that many children are ditching America’s public schools is undeniable. Most recently, Nat Malkus, Deputy Director of Education Policy at the American Enterprise Institute, reported that while chronic absenteeism spiked during the COVID pandemic, it remains a serious problem. In 2024, rates were 57% higher than they were before the pandemic. (Students who miss at least 10% of the school year, or roughly 18 days, are considered chronically absent.)

Malkus goes on to explain that in 2018 and 2019, about 15% of K–12 public school students in the U.S. were chronically absent—a number so high that numerous observers and the U.S. Department of Education are labeling it a “crisis.”

In total, nearly one in twelve public schools in the United States has experienced a “substantial” enrollment decline over the last five years

The problem is especially egregious in our big cities. In Los Angeles, more than 32% of students were chronically absent in the 2023-2024 school year.

In Chicago, dwindling enrollment has left about 150 schools half-empty, while 47 operate at less than one-third capacity.

Additionally, schools identified by their states as chronically low-performing were more than twice as likely to experience sizable enrollment declines as other public schools.

In February 2025, FutureEd disclosed that data from 22 states and the District of Columbia for the 2023-24 school year show significant differences across grade levels, with absenteeism particularly severe in high school.

“In most states, 12th graders have the highest rates of chronic absenteeism, often far exceeding state averages. In Mississippi, for example, the overall absenteeism rate was 24%, but among seniors, it soared to 41%. Several other states have senior absenteeism rates above 40%, with rates in the District of Columbia and Oregon exceeding 50%.”

FutureEd also reports that kindergartners have disproportionately high rates of chronic absenteeism.