60 dead people found on Illinois jury panel, triggering constitutional challenge

Defense attorney’s motion raises questions about how many other Illinois counties face the same problem and whether convictions in other cases might be vulnerable to similar challenges

#Jury #JuryDuty #Court

 

The 2026 NFL Draft Hits the Steel City: A Fan's Guide to the Top Prospects

The wait is finally over. For the first time in its storied history, the NFL Draft is setting up shop in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania a city that lives and breathes football like few others. As the black-and-gold faithful prepare to flood Point State Park and the North Shore from April 23-25, there's a palpable buzz not just about the spectacle, but about the talent that will walk across that stage.

This isn't just a draft; it's a homecoming for the sport's grittiest culture. While the Steelers look to restock a roster that fell just short of ultimate glory recently, the rest of the league will be picking through a class that is surprisingly deep at the "glamour" positions but anchored by old-school, hard-nosed defenders a fitting theme for a draft in the Steel City.

Here’s everything you need to know about the event itself and, more importantly, the elite prospects who will become household names by Saturday night.

A Draft Experience Worthy of Six Trophies

If you're heading down to the Point, prepare for a football overload. The NFL has effectively taken over downtown Pittsburgh, splitting the festivities between the official Draft Theater on the North Shore and a massive, free fan festival at Point State Park.

The iconic fountain will serve as the backdrop for "Steelers Country," a 12,000-square-foot interactive hub that feels like a pilgrimage for any fan of the sport. You can gawk at all six of the Steelers' Lombardi Trophies, walk the same red carpet as the prospects, and grab autographs from legends . A word of advice from a local: wear comfortable shoes. The NFL notes it's a solid 30-minute walk between the two sites via the Clemente Bridge, and while the Gateway Clipper will shuttle fans across the water on Friday and Saturday, you'll want to save your energy for cheering (or booing) the picks. .

The event is a testament to how massive the draft has become. "We just outgrew the North Shore, which is a really good problem," said Nicki Ewell, NFL VP of Global Events.

But enough about the party. Let's talk about the players who will soon be signing their first big checks.

The Marquee Names: Who Goes First?

This draft doesn't have the chaotic, "tank-for-a-quarterback" energy of some previous years, but that doesn't mean the top lacks star power. The debate at No. 1 overall centers on two distinct flavors of franchise-altering talent.

QB1: Fernando Mendoza, Indiana

After a meteoric rise following his transfer from Cal to Indiana, Fernando Mendoza has cemented himself as the cleanest pocket passer in this class. He doesn't have a cannon that will break fingers, but his 72% completion rate and 41-to-6 touchdown-to-interception ratio in 2025 scream efficiency and poise . Scouts rave about his ability to process defenses pre-snap and get the ball out quick a necessity in today's NFL. Mel Kiper Jr. calls him a "franchise quarterback," and the Joe Burrow comparisons are everywhere . If you're a team with a shaky offensive line, Mendoza's ability to cut down on sacks (from 41 at Cal to 25 at Indiana) makes him the safest bet in the draft.

The Home Run Threat: Jeremiyah Love, RB, Notre Dame

In an era where running backs have reclaimed first-round value, Jeremiyah Love is the crown jewel. It’s rare to see a back with legitimate 4.36 speed who also possesses the contact balance to bounce off SEC-caliber tacklers. ESPN's Matt Miller dropped a tantalizing comp: Reggie Bush. Love isn't just a runner; he's a legitimate receiving weapon who can line up in the slot and embarrass linebackers in space. For teams that missed out on the Saquon Barkley sweepstakes, Love offers a chance at a three-down chess piece who can score from anywhere on the field.

Ohio State's Defensive Factory: The Next Great Linebackers

If you're a fan of old-school, "run-and-hit" football, you're going to love this draft specifically the contingent from Columbus. The Buckeyes are sending two defenders to the top of the board who look like they were built in a lab to play linebacker in the AFC North.

Arvell Reese, Edge/LB

Reese is the type of versatile weapon that keeps offensive coordinators up at night. He’s built like a classic linebacker at 6'4", 241 pounds, but he rushes the passer with the ferocity of a pure edge . His instincts are off the charts. He doesn't just react to plays; he diagnoses them before the snap. If he lands with a creative defensive coordinator, don't be surprised if he's in the Defensive Rookie of the Year conversation by November.

Sonny Styles, LB

If Reese is the hammer, Sonny Styles is the heat-seeking missile. A former safety, Styles brings 4.46 speed to the second level, which is frankly unfair for someone weighing 244 pounds. His combine performance was legendary a 43½-inch vertical and an 11-foot-2 broad jump . On tape, he’s a sure tackler who covers ground like a gazelle. In a league increasingly dominated by tight ends and shifty slot receivers, Styles is the antidote.

The Pass Catchers: A Deep and Varied Class

While there isn't a Marvin Harrison Jr. in this group, the 2026 wide receiver class is incredibly deep with guys who just know how to get open. It's a technician's draft.

Jordyn Tyson, Arizona State

Tyson is the consensus WR1 for a reason. He’s 6'2" and plays like he's 6'5". His superpower is being "uncoverable" in the red zone and on 50/50 balls. He lacks that elite top-end gear, but his suddenness out of breaks creates separation even when the corner knows what's coming . He profiles as a quarterback's best friend on third down and a future Pro Bowler if he stays healthy.

Carnell Tate, Ohio State

Ohio State is basically "Wide Receiver U" at this point, and Carnell Tate is the next star off the assembly line. He’s smooth, polished, and boasts an absurd contested catch rate. Fun fact: He didn't drop a single one of his 66 targets in 2025 . He’s the Cooper Kupp comp in this draft he won't run by you, but he'll box you out, high-point the ball, and move the chains .

Makai Lemon, USC

Don't let the 5'11" frame fool you. Makai Lemon is a warrior. Kiper says he's one of his favorite players in the class because of the "fierce approach" he runs with after the catch. He’s drawn comps to Amon-Ra St. Brown a slot technician who is simply always open and fights for every blade of grass. In a league where yards after catch (YAC) is a premium stat, Lemon is a safe bet to outplay his draft slot.

The Hog Mollies: Building the Trenches

Pittsburgh fans appreciate the big uglies up front more than most, and this draft has some intriguing pieces for the offensive line.

Francis Mauigoa, OT, Miami

At 6'6" and 329 pounds, Mauigoa is the definition of a mauler. When you watch his tape, you see a man who takes joy in burying defensive ends. He's been a rock at right tackle for Miami, but many scouts believe his ultimate destiny is kicking inside to guard, where he could be a decade-long Pro Bowler . He’s the kind of player that instantly changes the physicality of a run game.

Spencer Fano, OT, Utah

On the opposite end of the spectrum is Spencer Fano, a technician who just doesn't allow sacks. He gave up exactly zero in 2025. The knock on Fano is arm length (32⅛ inches), which often pushes tackles inside at the next level. But if you need a smart, athletic lineman who can play multiple spots and keep your quarterback clean, Fano is a lock to be a quality starter for a long time.

The Wild Card: Akheem Mesidor, Edge, Miami

Here's a name that screams "Steelers Pick." Akheem Mesidor is a bit of an anomaly. He's 25 years old ancient by draft standards due to injuries and the COVID waiver but his tape is first-round caliber. He racked up 12.5 sacks for the Hurricanes last year, including two against top QB prospect Mendoza in the national title game. He's an instinctive, high-effort rusher with a deep toolbox of moves. Age will push him down boards, but as ESPN's Matt Miller noted, "the talent and motor are obvious" . He's the exact type of polished pass-rusher who could fall into the second round and make everyone wonder why they passed on him.

Final Thoughts

The 2026 NFL Draft in Pittsburgh feels like a perfect marriage of location and talent. The top of the board is heavy on Ohio State defenders who play with the kind of blue-collar violence this city adores, while the offensive skill positions offer immediate-impact starters.

Whether you're watching from the lawn at Point State Park or from your couch at home, this draft promises to be a showcase of what makes football great: The spectacle, the hope, and the raw, undeniable talent of the next generation. Let the chaos begin.

#NFL #NFLDraft #Football #Sports

This Diplomat Saw the Fall of the Shah Coming. Jimmy Carter Ignored Him.

The Carter administration overlooked a dissenting voice on Iran. It almost cost him his life.

An Anti-American crowd demonstrates outside of the U.S. Embassy, November 21, 1979. The followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini stormed the embassy earlier that month, occupied the building and took nearly 100 embassy staff and Marines hostages. | EPU/AFP via Getty Images

Erase Jimmy Carter’s Iran shame

#Carter #ShawofIran #Ayatollah #Iran

Islam: Peace, Tolerance, and the Question of Violence—A Conservative Assessment

 

Islam: Peace, Tolerance, and the Question of Violence—A Conservative Assessment

The question is often framed in stark binaries: Is Islam a religion of peace, or is it a religion of war? Does it tolerate other faiths, or is it inherently supremacist? Does it honor women, or subjugate them? And perhaps most disturbingly, why does the modern face of radical Islam so often wear a suicide vest? For a conservative mind, which tends to view the world through the prisms of order, tradition, and a healthy skepticism of utopian claims, the answer is rarely a simple yes or no. It requires a candid examination of texts, historical context, and contemporary behavior without the gloss of political correctness or the vitriol of bigotry.

The Problem with "Peace" as a Slogan

For decades, Western leaders from George W. Bush to Barack Obama have insisted that "Islam is a religion of peace." While politically expedient and partially true for millions of devout adherents, this mantra functions more as a moral aspiration a statement of what should be than an empirical description of what is across the entirety of the Muslim world . From a conservative perspective, the reality on the ground cannot be ignored in favor of abstract theology. The late Christian sociologist David Martin noted that while most Muslims are peaceful, Islam has historically maintained a "military psychology" and places a high premium on victory, which provides a reservoir of justification for those who turn to violence .

It is intellectually honest to acknowledge that the Islamic tradition, like many ancient faiths before the rise of modern liberalism, does not contain a doctrine of absolute pacifism akin to the Amish or Quakers. The sacred texts contain passages of profound mercy and others of severe judgment, often depending on whether the community is in a position of strength or weakness. To the conservative realist, a religion that emerged from the crucible of 7th-century tribal Arabia naturally retains frameworks for war and conquest. The concept of *jihad*, both the internal spiritual struggle and the external martial effort, is a genuine and historic pillar of the faith. To deny the existence of these "sword verses" or the martial history of the Caliphates is to engage in historical revisionism. The more pertinent question is not whether the text contains violence most ancient scriptures do—but how those texts are interpreted and applied by living communities today.

Tolerance or Hierarchical Coexistence?

When addressing the treatment of religious minorities, the conservative lens distinguishes between *toleration* and *pluralism*. Modern Western pluralism demands that all belief systems be treated as equally valid in the public square. Islam, classically, operates on a different framework. It has a long history of toleration specifically of "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians) but this is often a hierarchical toleration codified in the  dhimmi  system. Under this traditional pact, non-Muslims were granted protection of life, property, and freedom of worship, but they were required to pay a poll tax (jizya) and accept a subordinate social status, recognizing the primacy of Islamic rule .

From a conservative standpoint, we must be fair in our assessment. Compared to the European Wars of Religion or the Spanish Inquisition where the only choices were conversion, expulsion, or death historical Islam often provided a more stable, albeit unequal, space for minorities. The Qur'an explicitly states, "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256), and Al-Azhar, the preeminent seat of Sunni learning, cites verse 60:8-9 to clarify that God does not forbid Muslims from being righteous and just toward those who do not fight them on account of religion. However, conservative honesty also demands we recognize that in many contemporary Muslim-majority nations, this toleration is under severe strain. The escalating persecution of Christians in Egypt, Pakistan, and Nigeria, and the near-elimination of ancient Jewish communities across the Middle East, suggest that the modern application of "toleration" frequently fails the most basic test of religious liberty: the freedom to build a church, ring a bell, or switch faiths without fear of state or mob violence.

The Status of Women: Culture, Text, and Agency

The treatment of women is where conservative and liberal criticisms of Islam often converge, albeit for different reasons. Traditional conservatives value the nuclear family and recognize natural differences between the sexes. The problem is not that Islam asks men and women to inhabit different roles—many traditionalist Christians and Jews agree with this principle. The problem is the manifestation of those roles in law and custom.

The search results highlight a crucial distinction: the chasm between normative Islamic ideals and the "strongly patriarchal" reality of lived history. Riffat Hassan, a prominent Islamic feminist scholar, points out that the Qur'an itself describes the creation of humanity in "completely egalitarian terms". The story of Eve being created from Adam's rib often used to justify female inferiority is a biblical import found in *Hadith* (oral traditions), not the Qur'an itself. The spiritual and ontological equality of men and women is arguably a feature of the text.

Yet, the tradition has been filtered entirely through male exegesis, and the legal schools (fiqh) have codified female subordination on matters of inheritance, testimony, and marriage. The conservative observer notes a tangible "anxiety" in many Muslim societies regarding modernity and female emancipation. The veil and the push to confine women to private space are often not merely about piety but about resisting Westernization. As noted in the analysis of Islamic feminism, even in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia, where women's education has been robust, there is a discernible trend toward greater conservatism and stricter veiling. This suggests that the "treatment of women" is not a monolith; it varies wildly from the boardrooms of Dubai to the valleys of rural Afghanistan. A conservative critique would hold that while Western feminism's excesses should be rejected, the denial of basic education, freedom of movement, and legal standing to half the population represents a civilizational deficit that cannot be excused by appeals to cultural relativism.

The Enigma of the Suicide Bomber

Why the suicide bombers? From a conservative security perspective, this is the most pressing question. It is insufficient to simply say "this is not Islam" and leave it at that, because the perpetrators clearly believe it is. The phenomenon of "martyrdom-seeking operations" (*istishhad*) represents a distinct and modern theological innovation, a break with classical Islamic law which strictly forbids suicide and the killing of non-combatants.

The academic literature demonstrates that this tactic is not a natural outgrowth of mainstream Islam but a deliberate construction of late 20th-century Jihadi-Salafism and revolutionary Shi'ism. The scholar Nathan S. French explains that these movements re-engineered the concept of martyrdom, distinguishing a "martyr's intention" from mere suicidal ideation by requiring the act to be entirely for God, devoid of worldly fear or desire. This is a radical departure from 1400 years of jurisprudence, and it has been fueled by the post-colonial grievances and political failures of states like Iran and Lebanon, where groups like Hezbollah and the Iranian Basij forces fused the Shi'a narrative of Husayn's martyrdom at Karbala with modern guerrilla warfare tactics.

A conservative analysis must conclude that the suicide bomber is the product of a lethal cocktail: a fanatical, utopian political ideology dressed in the language of sacred religion, operating in a vacuum of political order and economic opportunity. When the earthly kingdom (dunya) offers only humiliation and occupation, the promise of a divine kingdom and eternal reward becomes a powerful recruitment tool for those who believe the world is a battlefield of "us versus them" . It is a perversion of faith, yes, but it is a perversion that draws from the well of an authentic (if minority) interpretation of the faith's call to struggle.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, insisting that Islam is only a religion of peace requires a willful blindness to text and history. Conversely, insisting it is only a religion of the sword requires a willful blindness to the lived piety and pluralism of almost two billion people. From a conservative perspective, the most prudent approach is one of clear-eyed realism. We should respect the sincere faith of our peaceful Muslim neighbors and allies while unapologetically defending the Western traditions of liberty, free speech, and legal equality. We must resist the secular progressive impulse to declare all cultures equally valid while staying neutral and non biased.

#Islam #Peace #Religion #Muslims #Christianity

The Great Fiscal Migration: Why Red States Are Booming as Blue States Bleed Population and GDP

 

The Great Fiscal Migration: Why Red States Are Booming as Blue States Bleed Population and GDP

America is in the midst of a profound economic realignment one measured not just in quarterly earnings reports or stock market tickers, but in moving trucks, forwarding addresses, and billions of dollars in taxable income crossing state lines. The data tells an unmistakable story: low-tax, Republican-led states are experiencing a GDP boom while high-tax, Democrat-controlled states watch their populations and economic output erode.

11 states team up for business-friendly ‘Boom Belt’

GOP Govs. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Greg Abbott of Texas highlighted their state’s low taxes and light-regulation approach.

The numbers are staggering. According to IRS migration data analyzed by the Wall Street Journal, California lost a net $11.9 billion in adjusted gross income between 2022 and 2023, primarily to destinations like Texas, Nevada, and Arizona. New York hemorrhaged $9.9 billion. Illinois shed $6 billion. Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, and Minnesota each lost over a billion dollars in taxable income as residents packed up and left.

Meanwhile, the destination states are thriving. Florida gained more than $1 trillion in adjusted gross income over the decade from 2012 to 2023. Texas, Tennessee, the Carolinas, and Utah are posting GDP growth rates that dwarf their high-tax counterparts. In a historic first, the Southeast region including Texas has now surpassed the Northeast as the largest GDP-producing region in the United States, a shift that economist Stephen Moore notes is unprecedented in 250 years of American economic history .

The Policy Divergence

What explains this dramatic reshuffling of America's economic geography? The answer lies in a growing policy chasm between red and blue states on taxation, regulation, and the fundamental role of government.

Since 2021, 23 states have reduced their top marginal income tax rates, according to Jared Walczak of the Tax Foundation. The vast majority of these tax-cutting states are controlled by Republican trifectas—meaning the party holds both legislative chambers and the governor's office. Nine states now impose no state income tax at all, and more are moving in that direction. Mississippi and Oklahoma have charted courses to eliminate their income taxes entirely. South Carolina aims to drop its rate to 1.99 percent. Missouri voters will consider a ballot initiative to phase out the income tax altogether.

Democratic-controlled states, by contrast, are moving in precisely the opposite direction. Washington State long an outlier as a blue state with no income tax recently passed a 9.9 percent tax on income above $1 million annually. New York, Rhode Island, and Colorado are pursuing higher taxes on top earners. California has proposed a wealth tax that, even before passage, prompted high-profile billionaires including Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Ellison to relocate.

The American Legislative Exchange Council's 2026 "Rich States, Poor States" analysis captures the consequences of this divergence. Nine of the ten lowest-ranked states for economic competitiveness are Democratic trifectas. New York ranked dead last for the 13th consecutive year, burdened by the nation's highest corporate income tax rate at 18.28 percent and second-highest personal income tax rate at 14.78 percent. California ranked 47th, having lost 1.4 million residents over the past decade.

At the other end of the spectrum, eight of the top ten most economically prosperous states are Republican trifectas. Florida posted the best economic performance in 2025, with GDP growth of 98 percent over the past decade. Utah's GDP grew more than 110 percent over the same period. Both states maintain only marginally progressive income tax structures, with Florida imposing none at all .

Voting With Their Feet

The migration patterns reveal something deeper than mere tax arbitrage though taxes clearly matter. U-Haul's 2025 migration data, compiled from over 2.5 million one-way rental transactions, shows Texas reclaiming its position as America's top destination for the seventh time in a decade. Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, and South Carolina round out the top five. California, meanwhile, has ranked at the very bottom for six consecutive years.

The tax differential is striking. Among the ten states experiencing the greatest inbound migration, the average top personal income tax rate stands at just 3.5 percent. The bottom ten states average more than double that rate, at 7.2 percent. Three of the top four destination states Texas, Florida, and Tennessee impose no state income tax whatsoever .

This is economist Charles Tiebout's "voting with your feet" theory made manifest. Americans may not follow every policy debate in granular detail, but they understand when a state taxes too much, regulates too heavily, and delivers too little in return. The moving trucks represent a rolling referendum on blue-state governance.

Joel Kotkin, Presidential Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University, frames the exodus in terms of a simple cost-benefit calculation: "In a state like California, you pay high taxes, but you don't get much for your money. Schools are pretty bad in much of the state. The roads are in terrible shape. The infrastructure isn't keeping up—so people have to make a rational choice".

The Illinois Cautionary Tale

No state better illustrates the self-reinforcing cycle of blue-state decline than Illinois. The numbers are almost too grim to believe: 1.6 million residents lost since 2000. $321 billion in cumulative adjusted gross income departed between 2012 and 2023 a per-capita hemorrhage actually worse than California's. GDP growth since 2019 stands at just 7.9 percent, ranking 46th nationally against an average of 17.6 percent .

The state's pension liability has ballooned to $221 billion the worst in America and 147 percent higher than second-place California. State spending has increased 40 percent since 2019, funded by 58 separate tax and fee hikes. Audited financial reports are now cumulatively 1,810 days late, meaning legislators vote on next year's budget without knowing what last year's actually cost .

The human dimension is captured in a single, almost surreal detail: the Chicago Bears, a franchise that survived the Great Depression and two world wars, are reportedly calculating the math on relocating to Indiana. The Hoosier State offers lower taxes and a more welcoming business climate. Indiana could soon have two NFL teams; Illinois might have none .

The Emerging Wealth Tax Threat

The policy divergence between red and blue states appears poised to widen further. At least seven blue states are now considering some form of wealth tax in addition to already-high income taxes. Stephen Moore's "Vote With Your Feet" project at Unleash Prosperity has documented a historically consistent pattern: wealth taxes and steep income taxes do not redistribute income they redistribute people. And the people who leave take their economic activity, investment capital, philanthropy, and the jobs they create with them .

The pattern is already evident in Washington State, long a blue-state exception thanks to its lack of an income tax a policy directly connected to the founding and growth of Amazon, Microsoft, and Starbucks in the Seattle area. Within months of Washington passing its new millionaire's tax, Microsoft began moving facilities out of the state, a process Moore predicts will "start slowly and then accelerate dramatically" .

A Political Realignment in Progress

The economic migration reshaping America carries profound political implications. At current rates, the 2030 census is expected to trigger a significant reshuffling of congressional representation. The Brennan Center projects that red states could pick up 12 House seats lost by blue states. Northeastern representation may drop from 92 to 81 seats, while Southern states gain 19 seats. There could be a net gain of 10 electoral votes in states won by President Trump in 2024.

This is not merely a story about tax rates and GDP figures. It is a story about competing visions of governance, about the relationship between citizens and the state, and about the fundamental conditions under which economic growth flourishes or withers. Red states are making a wager that lighter tax burdens, fewer regulations, and more restrained government will attract enough people, capital, and enterprise to sustain public services without squeezing their tax bases. Blue states are betting that voters will pay a premium for more expansive public services and progressive policy commitments.

The moving trucks have already rendered a provisional verdict. For now, the flow of people and capital is decidedly toward states that ask less, cost less, and take less from the people who create wealth. Whether blue states can reverse course before their tax bases erode past the point of no return remains one of the defining questions of America's economic future.

#Texas #BlueStates #RedStates #California #Florida #NewYork #Indiana #GDP

Gas Light: From Democrats and Voting ... WE DON'T LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY

 

Gas Light: From Democrats and Voting ... WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY:

I hate to  beat a dead horse. However, everytime I hear a Democrat say the word 'DEMOCRACY' or 'Our DEMOCRACY is at stake' I want to go 'AAARRRRGGGHHH'. We don't live in a DEMOCRACY. We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC by design.

When they say DEMOCRACY that is code for POPULAR VOTE. Even though Trump won the POPULAR VOTE in 2024 they are fighting to keep ILLEGALS in the country and fighting against the SAFE ACT. They want the future votes from the anchor babies. They also are pushing for ILLEGALS to vote in National elections, as they are already allowed to vote in Municipal elections. I saw it in Los Angeles County. I remember when they passed that Legislation. 

They hate the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. If they can remove it's Angeles, Chicago, NYC, Seattle, Portland, and Detroit would decide every Presidential election. Those are the POPULATION BIG CITY BLUE CITIES. If we just used the POPULAR VOTE Republicans would probably never win the Whitehouse again. States like Wyoming, North Dakota, or South Dakota, and the like would never have a say In a Presidential election again. They don't have enough people to have a voice. You don't want BLUE CITIES running AMERICA.

The Reason The Forefathers Added The ELECTORAL COLLEGE:

The Forefathers added the ELECTORAL COLLEGE because they were afraid VIRGINIA would or could decided every Presidential election (In a 13 State country at the time.) Virginia was the most populous State at that time. Virginia had enough people to drown out all of the other States. And they weren't having that.

Thank God the Forefathers, although some were slave owners, were smarter than the MODERN DAY DEMOCRATS. However, remember, DEMOCRATS were the Party of Slavery. Go after THEM for your REPARATIONS CHECK.

#ElectoralCollege #Democracy #Voting #Forefathers #ConstitutionalRepublic #Constitution

Democrats prepare to abandon Cherfilus-McCormick en masse

Many House Democrats are ready to vote to expel Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) from Congress as soon as the House Ethics Committee meets to decide her fate on Tuesday, Axios has found in interviews with over 30 lawmakers.

Why it matters: Republicans are expected to force an expulsion vote, but they will need roughly 80 Democratic votes to remove Cherfilus-McCormick.

#Congress #Cherfilus-McCormick #Florida #Corruption #CherfilusMcCormick

Parallel Law and the Retreat from Integration: The Sharia Court Dilemma in Britain

 

Parallel Law and the Retreat from Integration: The Sharia Court Dilemma in Britain

The United Kingdom's relationship with Islamic law has reached a critical juncture. Official government responses continue to insist that "there are no sharia law courts" operating in the country. Yet this technical denial collapses under scrutiny. Estimates suggest approximately 85 Sharia councils currently operate across Britain bodies that frequently refer to themselves as "courts" on their own websites and issue binding religious rulings on marriage and family life. For conservatives concerned with national cohesion, equal treatment under law, and the preservation of Western liberal values, this parallel quasi-legal system represents a troubling abdication of the state's duty to uphold a single standard of justice for all citizens.

The existence of these tribunals is not a sign of healthy multiculturalism. Rather, it reflects a failure of integration policy and a naive, bureaucratic accommodation of practices that often conflict fundamentally with British common law and the principle of equality before the law.

What Sharia Law Actually Means

To understand the gravity of this situation, one must first define Sharia. It is not merely a set of spiritual guidelines or optional religious rituals; it is a comprehensive legal-moral framework derived from two primary sources: the Qur'an (the holy text of Islam) and the Sunnah (the teachings and practices of the Prophet Muhammad).

In orthodox Islamic jurisprudence, Sharia is considered divine, eternal, and immutable. Its reach extends far beyond the private sphere of worship (ibadat) to govern civil transactions, criminal punishments (hudud), family relations, and even dietary restrictions. Crucially, Sharia is not a codified system like British statutory law. It is interpreted by jurists through a process called ijtihad (independent reasoning) and is subject to different schools of thought (madhahib), leading to significant variation in rulings .

However, despite this variation, core tenets of classical Sharia stand in stark opposition to foundational Western principles:

Gender Inequality:

In matters of inheritance, a daughter typically receives half the share of a son. In legal testimony, the witness of two women is often equated to that of one man .

Marital Dissolution:

Within many Sharia councils in the UK, men can unilaterally dissolve a marriage through talaq (triple repudiation), while women must navigate a complex, often humiliating, process of khula to obtain a religious divorce.

Criminal Justice:

While not implemented in Britain, the classical Sharia framework includes hudud punishments fixed penalties for offenses like theft (amputation) or adultery (stoning) which are anathema to modern concepts of human dignity and proportionality in sentencing .

It is this legal framework that British authorities have allowed to metastasize in the shadows of civil society.

The Myth of "Voluntary Arbitration"

Defenders of the Sharia council system, including the UK Government, argue that these bodies are simply arbitration tribunals whose rulings are only binding if both parties consent. They frame it as a matter of religious freedom a private agreement akin to a Jewish Beth Din or a Christian conciliation service.

This analogy is dangerously misleading. As critics note, Sharia councils routinely handle cases that are not merely contractual but involve status specifically whether a woman is still married according to God. For a devout Muslim woman, a civil divorce granted by a British court is insufficient to remarry within her faith community. She must obtain a religious divorce from the Sharia council.

This creates a coercive dynamic. A woman trapped in an abusive marriage may face a "get-out" fee demanded by the council or be pressured into returning to a violent spouse because the community and the parallel law they follow does not recognize the state's protection. This is not voluntary arbitration; it is a separate, theocratic jurisdiction operating with the implicit threat of social ostracism and communal excommunication. It creates precisely the "two-tier" justice system that conservatives have long warned against .

The Flawed Premise: Why Arabs and Muslims Are Not Assimilating

This brings us to the second, more uncomfortable, question raised by the original article: Why are Arabs and Muslim communities in the West, particularly in Britain, not assimilating in the way previous waves of immigrants did? The answer lies in the intersection of postmodern Western guilt and a strain of Islamic theology that is actively hostile to secular integration.

Glenn Loury's analysis in UnHerd touches on this dilemma, arguing that the demand for "assimilation" is often seen by progressives as a form of cultural erasure or coercion. He suggests that societies require a "shared civic order" and "mutual trust" to function, and that pluralism without convergence inevitably creates friction. This friction is evident in Britain's towns and cities.

From a conservative perspective, assimilation is not about forcing individuals to eat pork or abandon prayer. It is about primacy of allegiance. It is the acceptance that the laws, customs, and democratic traditions of the host nation supersede the tribal or religious codes of the land of origin.

Yet, the very existence of Sharia councils is a *demand* to not assimilate. It is a statement that the laws of England are not good enough for the regulation of Muslim family life. When the state actively advertises roles for Sharia law graduates to assess Islamic councils, it sends a signal that the government views its own common law as optional a toolkit from which one can pick and choose based on faith .

The course catalog description from a Western university highlights that the social and political inclusion of Muslim immigrants is "contentious" because the experiences are often defined by a "particular set of discourses on Islam" rather than a shared British narrative. This is a self-inflicted wound. Multiculturalism as a state ideology has emphasized retention of difference rather than acquisition of commonality. Instead of telling new arrivals, "You are now British, and these are the rights and responsibilities that come with it," the British establishment has said, "Stay in your community, govern yourselves, and we will adjust our laws to accommodate your sensibilities."

Conclusion

The proliferation of Sharia councils in Britain is not a benign exercise of religious freedom. It is a symbol of the West's loss of confidence in its own cultural and legal heritage. No conservative denies the right of individuals to worship as they see fit. But when a parallel system of law emerges that systematically disadvantages women and undermines the authority of the state, it is not bigotry to object it is a duty to the principles of the Enlightenment.

The answer to the assimilation question is not complex: it requires a reassertion of national sovereignty and legal uniformity. The government must stop hiding behind semantic distinctions between "courts" and "councils." If these bodies act like courts, issue rulings, and rely on community pressure for enforcement, they should be subject to the same oversight and equality legislation as any other British institution. A nation that tolerates two systems of law is a nation on the path to fragmentation. The only way to heal that divide is to insist that there is one law for all, and that British justice is not up for negotiation.

#Sharia #ShariaLaw #Muslims #GreatBritain England

Democrats Are Turning On America

Democrats are turning on America:

DEMOCRATS hates Trump so bad the Democrats are rooting for Iran. They are so mad that Americans elected Trump. Wow ... It's an election year. They are who they say they are ... Marxist Socialists.

'Traitor' Dem senator ripped after one-word reaction appears to cheer on Iran

Mike Davis called on the Senate to vote to censure Murphy, saying he was 'cheering for America's enemy

#SenatorMurphy #Senate #Murphy #Iran #MiddleEast

When ‘Resistance’ Becomes Reckless: Why the Left’s Iran Affinity Exposes a Deep Disconnect with America

For decades, American foreign policy has operated under one non-negotiable premise: the Islamic Republic of Iran is the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism. This is not a partisan talking point; it is a documented, bipartisan consensus spanning multiple administrations. From the 1979 hostage crisis to the arming of Hezbollah, the funding of Hamas, and the direct targeting of U.S. troops in the Middle East, Iran’s regime has chanted “Death to America” with a consistency that rivals the sunrise.

Yet here we are in 2026, an election year of staggering consequence, witnessing a phenomenon that even the most cynical political observers find shocking. A vocal, influential, and increasingly unhinged wing of the Democratic Party has abandoned that consensus. Their hatred for Donald Trump has become so all-consuming, so viscerally personal, that they have effectively chosen a side in a geopolitical conflict where one side explicitly seeks the destruction of the West. The statement rings true: They hate Trump so much, they are rooting for Iran.

The Anatomy of a Political Inversion

To understand how we arrived at this precipice, one must first understand the psychology of the modern progressive movement. For the Left, the election of 2024 was supposed to be the permanent reclamation of the American project. They were told demographics were destiny. They were told the "coalition of the ascendant" would crush the "deplorables." When Donald J. Trump won a mandate to restore American sovereignty and economic strength, the emotional and ideological infrastructure of the Democratic Party shattered.

Instead of introspection, we got projection. Instead of asking why working-class voters in Pennsylvania or minority voters in the Southwest fled the Democratic plantation, they doubled down on the only thing that unites their fracturing coalition: Anti-Trump psychosis. This is not normal political opposition. It is a fever that burns so hot it warps perception. In the worldview of the progressive activist and the cable news commentator, if Trump is for X, then Y must be the moral imperative even if Y is the Ayatollah.

Rooting for the Regime

Let’s be clear about what "rooting for Iran" looks like in practice. It manifests as a sudden, selective amnesia regarding the Green Movement protests, where brave Iranians were shot in the streets while the Obama-Biden administration looked the other way. It manifests in the downplaying of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the constant, hand-wringing defense of the disastrous Iran Deal (JCPOA) a deal that funneled pallets of cash to a terror state in the dead of night and paved a sunset path to a nuclear bomb.

More recently, as the Trump administration has reasserted maximum pressure and stood unequivocally with Israel and our Sunni Arab allies in countering Tehran’s proxies, the Left’s response has been one of tacit approval for the mullahs. We see this in the anti-Israel protests on elite college campuses that are not simply "pro-Palestinian," but are explicitly pro-Iranian axis. They wave Hezbollah flags. They chant slogans that echo Iranian propaganda. They demand that America retreat and allow the world’s largest state sponsor of terror to operate with impunity.

Why? Because Donald Trump opposes Iran. Therefore, in the zero-sum, binary moral universe of the modern Left, Iran must be the victim. It is a stunning example of cutting off one’s nose to spite the nation’s face. By weakening America’s deterrent posture abroad, they believe they are weakening Trump at home. They are wrong on both counts. They are only weakening the United States.

They Are Who They Say They Are

For years, conservatives were mocked for warning that the Democratic Party was shifting from a center-left coalition to a vessel for anti-American sentiment. We were told "socialism" was just a scare word, that "Marxist" was an outdated epithet. Yet the party’s own base has rendered the debate moot. 

They are who they say they are.

When you watch a Congressional Democrat stand on the House floor and compare U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to the Gestapo, but offer not a whisper of criticism for Iran’s morality police throwing women off buildings for not wearing a hijab, the mask has slipped entirely. When you see the progressive caucus fight tooth and nail to defund American defense systems that protect our troops from Iranian-made IEDs, you are not seeing policy disagreement; you are seeing a fundamental disdain for the American security apparatus.

This is the logical endpoint of Marxist theory as applied to foreign policy: The "oppressor" (America) is always wrong, and the "oppressed" (Iran) is always right, regardless of the facts on the ground. Iran is not a nation of 85 million people yearning for freedom; it is a revolutionary vanguard state in the eyes of the Left, a useful tool against the "Great Satan."

An Election Year Reckoning

This is the stark reality of the 2026 midterms. The Democrats are not offering a return to Bill Clinton’s triangulation or John F. Kennedy’s "bear any burden" internationalism. They are offering a worldview where America is the problem and our enemies are, at worst, misunderstood.

The American people see this. They see the clips of protests where the American flag is burned and replaced with the flags of terrorist proxies. They hear the silence from the Left when Iran plots assassinations on U.S. soil. They understand, on a gut level, that rooting for Iran is not just a political miscalculation; it is a betrayal of the American promise.

Conservatives must seize this moment not with anger, but with clarity. The Democratic Party has become a mirror image of the very forces it claims to fight: intolerant, authoritarian in its speech codes, and aligned against the interests of the nation whose Constitution it swore to defend. They are mad Americans elected Trump because Trump’s presence exposes their own antipathy toward the country they seek to govern. In their fury, they have revealed the truth. In 2026, voters will have the chance to remind them that in America, we still put the Stars and Stripes before the flag of any foreign power especially those that chant for our demise.