Borders, Babies, and Civilizational Survival

American Thinker 

Another Sunday and the congregation of my church was subjected to yet another homily from a left-wing priest lecturing us on how being a good Christian means we support open borders, and failing to welcome all strangers is antithetical to what Jesus taught.

This particular priest is not unique.

Ordinary citizens in western countries are being lectured to and shamed by leftists because we object to vast numbers of immigrants from 2nd and 3rd-world countries who have no desire to assimilate, who prey on our women and children, commit massive fraud, and place unsustainable drains on our resources.

The elites tell us we need immigrants because we face declining native birth rates, which are well below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. They promote mass immigration as the remedy to sustain populations, and economies. However, evidence from sources across the political spectrum reveals this as a shortsighted strategy that fails to address root causes, strains social cohesion, and often results in unassimilated populations that create new problems while serving as a tool for expanding dependent voter bases.

Immigration does not sustainable solve low fertility. Immigrants' higher initial birth rates often converge to host-country lows within one or two generations. A Population Research Institute analysis noted that global fertility is declining, shrinking the pool of potential high-fertility migrants, and that immigration acts as a temporary band-aid rather than a cure. In Czechia, a post-2022 surge of Ukrainian refugees coincided with a 25% drop in native births, despite prior post-natalist policies boosting fertility to 1.83. Cultural disruption, housing pressures, and political polarization -- older voters turning right, younger ones embracing anti-natalist views -- appear to exacerbate the decline.

Switzerland's upcoming referendum on capping its population at 10 million highlights these tensions. Their population has surged from 7.3 million in 2002 to over 9 million today, driven largely by immigration. This has pressured housing, infrastructure, and national identity. The Swiss People's Party frames it as preserving Swiss culture against "creeping Islamization" and non-assimilating expatriates, while critics warn of economic harm. Foreign nationals comprise 27% of the population -- greatly exceeding the EU average -- yet fertility stands at 1.3. Reports as of Sunday afternoon indicate that the vote has failed.

Beyond demographics, conservatives argue that immigration policies enlarge a dependent voter base. Unskilled or low-assimilating inflows can increase reliance on welfare, shifting electoral dynamics toward parties (guess which one!) favoring expansive government. This creates a feedback loop: more dependents, more votes for expansive government policies, further straining natives who fund the system while facing competition for jobs, housing, and services.

We've seen what happens when large numbers of immigrants choose not to assimilate. Immigrants from culturally distant regions form parallel societies, rejecting host norms. This has fueled horrific crimes. In the UK, grooming gangs -- predominantly men of Pakistani heritage -- systematically raped and exploited thousands of vulnerable young white girls in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Telford, and elsewhere. Authorities often turned a blind eye due to fears of "racism," with inquiries revealing institutional failures spanning years. Reports link political calculations, including under Keir Starmer's time as Director of Public Prosecutions, to delayed or soft-pedaled prosecutions.

Similar patterns appear elsewhere. In Sweden and other Western European cities, no-go zones and gang violence tied to migrant communities have transformed safe cities. Belfast saw riots after a Sudanese immigrant was charged in a knife attack. Houses and businesses were torched, and politicians blamed "thuggery" but ignored public frustration over the public's border concerns and prior stabbings.

In Scotland, a 12-year-old girl was arrested and vilified after defending herself with a knife and axe against a Bulgarian man who sexually harassed her ("Come here, sexy") and assaulted her, pushing her into a handrail. He filmed it, claimed racial abuse, and authorities initially sided with him until CCTV and a court vindicated the girls. His sister assaulted the victim's sibling. This case was amplified by Elon Musk, and exposed misplaced priorities favoring migrants over native children.

Citizens are pushing back. The Scottish girl's vindication, Belfast unrest, and Sweden's shifting politics reflect growing resistance to unchecked inflows and elite denial. Switzerland's vote tests whether prosperity and identity can coexist with rapid demographic change.

Evolutionary psychologist Gad Saad warns of "suicidal empathy" -- excessive, unbounded compassion that prioritizes outsiders over citizens, eroding self-preservation. Rooted in cultural relativism and a view of the West as uniquely sinful, it leads to policies ignoring trade-offs: admitting those incompatible with Western values, downplaying crime to avoid "Islamophobia," or favoring migrants over veterans and taxpayers. Saad argues this hyper-empathy, weaponized by bad actors, risks civilizational collapse, as seen in post October 7 shifts or the absurdities of gender ideologies. The West's miracle of liberty and prosperity requires moderated empathy, not suicide.

There are, surprisingly, occasional wise words from Catholic leaders such as these and these.  Even Pope Leo was able to utter some words of wisdom that affirmed human dignity without open borders, emphasizing the rule of law and prudent enforcement.

Using immigration to fix falling births imports demographic and cultural challenges without resolving them. It risks social fragmentation, elevated crime from non-assimilators, and political manipulation via dependency. Nations must prioritize native family formation through pro-natal policies, cultural confidence, and selective, assimilative immigration -- not endless inflows that dilute identity and strain empathy's limits.

Podcast thread for June 16

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzz...

Who Really Won—or Is Winning—the American-Persian War?

Townhall 

Historian Will Durant on the ancient Persian empire:

“[It is not] natural that nations diverse in language, religion, morals, and traditions should long remain united; there is nothing organic in such a union, and compulsion must repeatedly be applied to maintain the artificial bond. In its two hundred years of empire, Persia did nothing to lessen this heterogeneity, these centrifugal forces; she was content to rule a mob of nations, and never thought of making them into a state” (Our Oriental Heritage, 382).

I have no objection to trying to prevent dangerous governments, run by questionably civilized radicals, from having nuclear weapons. Actually, I'd prefer to see nuclear weapons completely eradicated from this planet. But unfortunately, humans have this overwhelming lust to kill each other, and some, like communists and other barbarians, like to do it in massive numbers, when possible. So, civilized people must be protected against such. The Chinese Communist Party, for example, would like to kill everybody else on earth (they seemed to have tried it with the Wuhan virus), or, at best, to enslave everyone (including their own people), but if they attempted to do that with nuclear weapons, they know that America, and perhaps one or two other nations that have nukes, would retaliate. Thus, mankind prefers to stand at MAD—“Mutually Assured Destruction”—and call it peace.

I'm also not opposed to a “regime change” in Iran; getting a government in Persia that is at least tolerable to us, doesn’t want to blow us to kingdom come, and might be at least half-way nice to its own people, would probably be a blessing to the world. The question is, is such a government in Iran even possible? That is extremely problematic, given the history of that region of the globe.

A regime change in Iran is fine, no doubt needed, but it must be done the correct way. I would have a problem with America forcing that change on Iran, or any other country. First, a regime change in Iran, if established by America, is not exactly in harmony with our great principle of government by the consent of the governed. We are supposed to believe in democracy, which means letting people select their own government. Or, as James Madison said, “democracy [is] the right of the people to choose their own tyrant(s).” Like we do.

However, it is probable that if the “consent of the governed” principle is followed in Iran and the people elect a government they consented to, it would be one that would hate us as much as the current one does. America hasn’t exactly made an overabundance of friends in the Middle East (pardon my understatement). We could hope the Iranian people chose well, but that’s all it would be—hope. And probably a vain one.

The Islamic, Middle Eastern mind is something that Americans have never seemed to fully grasp. Muslims don't want democracy, at least not like ours. Folks, these are, for good or ill, mostly very religious people, with beliefs that many of them are willing to die for. They look at democracy, they look at America, and what do they see? They see feminism, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, child mutilation, rampant crime. They see alcoholism and drugs. They see promiscuity and licentiousness gone to seed. They see just about everything that is opposite their religious beliefs, or at least what the Koran and their religious leaders tell them they should believe. That, to them, is democracy, and democracy, to them, means godless licentiousness. And they don’t want it.

And there is no sense exploding and throwing their barbarisms back in their faces; that is wholly irrelevant to what they want and believe. Yes, we find as much of what they believe and practice as abhorrent to us…as what we believe and practice is to them. We don’t want a tyrannical theocracy. They don’t want a godless democracy. We’ll make a HUGE mistake if we try to ram “democracy” down their throats.

Middle Eastern, Islamic peoples appear to prefer a tyrant who makes them believe in the Koran to a democracy as decadent as America. At least, that’s what the Iranian people have always had, and it’s a little hard to believe they would do an abrupt about-face and accept and cherish a decadent democracy. If they did change to a democratic government, it would almost surely end up like what they have had for thousands of years. And mimic what they believe. How could it not?

Theocratic tyranny, however, is not necessarily absolute for all ME Muslims. It appears now that there are many Arab/Islamic peoples who prefer Western tyranny to the socialist, elitist, theocratic tyranny they have had for so long in the ME. And that brings me to the question of the title of this essay—who is really winning that war in Persia? The guys with the biggest bombs and bullets? Or the guys who are, by the millions, infiltrating the other country and slowly, methodically changing it (by voting Democratic) into a government tyranny akin to the one they left behind?

To be a “self-governing” people means knowing what “self-government” is. The Arabs who have left the Middle East for Texas, Michigan, Washington, etc., might think they want “democracy.” But if they have no clue what it is, they will simply revert back to what they have always known. Read the Durant quote again at the beginning of this article. The Democratic Party, like ancient Persia, is doing “nothing to lessen this heterogeneity, these centrifugal forces”; indeed, the Democrats are only encouraging it. Again, I ask: Who is really winning the war?

Immigration is acceptable, unless it produces what Durant described in ancient Persia. And like the Democrats are trying to produce in America.

If we don’t defeat the Democrats, then the war in Iran will have been useless.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Embattled British Prime Minister Announces Social Media Information Control System to Protect “Children”

Leftist British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has lost support among the majority of voters within the United Kingdom as evidenced by the shellacking his party took in the recent election.  However, as the embattled leader clings to power by telling law enforcement to crackdown on anti-government voices, he extends the control mechanisms under the guise of “protecting children.”

If you are a social media user or internet user in the U.K, you now have to prove your age by proving your identity. It is obvious to the non-pretenders that proving your identity is the objective; the ruse to force the mandate is to prove your age. This is the way a grand lie is deployed in order to achieve an objective.  ‘All your information are belong to us.’

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer delivers a press conference with the announcement from 10 Downing Street. He announces a sweeping ban on social media for children under 16, describing it as a “big step” to protect young people from online harm. Starmer defends the policy as necessary to tackle “addictive algorithms, cyberbullying, and mental health risks.”  Britain will follow Australia’s example in raising the minimum age to 16 for sites such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X, YouTube, and Snapchat.

BIG PICTURE: Australia, New Zealand and Canada all have social media control systems in place. Now, the U.K joins with them.  What does Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the U.K have on common?  They are all part of the 5-Eyes intelligence network.  This is an IC operation. Don’t lose sight of it.

This is a freedom battle against aligned interests that have historically used the intelligence community as their main strategy.

From the western globalist perspective, you must always accept their #1 priority is information control. It doesn’t matter what the tool or technique of the day being discussed it, the #1 issue -for them- is to control information.

Look at everything, including and importantly the current AI discussions and debate, through the prism of information control. COVID-19 taught you the lesson. Information control is the objective.

Social media restrictions, internet restrictions, the terms ‘mis-dis-mal-information’ etc., the AI race, election systems they can manage, demonetizing or deboosting, CISA, NED, USAID, the payment to “influencers”, media bans, all of it, the sum of every effort, tool and technique is about controlling information.

Frisco Schools Create Dozens Of Karmelo Anthonys By Refusing To Discipline Black Students

For Austin Metcalf’s sake as well as Karmelo Anthony’s, the disciplinary double-standard must end so another senseless murder doesn’t happen.

The Federalist 

Last week in Frisco, Texas, 19-year-old Karmelo Anthony was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 35 years in prison. No one in the jury believed his claim of self-defense and instead found that Anthony provoked a confrontation with student Austin Metcalf by going into his school’s tent during a track meet, taunting the students there, refusing to leave despite repeated requests, and finally plunging a knife into Austin’s heart after being nudged. 

It remains a mystery why exactly Anthony did this, which might explain why so many people even entertained his claim of self-defense. But the facts of the case show that Anthony apparently had no other reason to kill Metcalf than pure malice and aggression.

One could go further and ask why Anthony harbored these violent impulses in the first place. He lived in Frisco, an affluent, family-friendly suburb with good schools. He had two parents at home to take care of him. He played sports and had plenty of friends. He was a month away from graduating and could have done anything. So why throw it away?

In the absence of evidence, it is anyone’s guess. Perhaps Anthony’s supporters are right in assuming he was somehow bullied and held back by a racist system. Or perhaps Anthony was radicalized by toxic internet content that encouraged him to kill a white person. Or perhaps he was suffering from some unknown mental illness or emotional trauma.

Or, most likely, perhaps Anthony was a willful, irresponsible youth who was never seriously disciplined or corrected at school or at home, and therefore felt entitled to hurt and even kill people because he felt like it.

I have taught in this area of North Texas for several years and have encountered many students like Anthony. They terrorize their classes, do little work, and misbehave constantly. Yet they are never corrected or held back because they are black.

Like most districts in Texas, Frisco Independent School District has a two-tiered system of discipline. While nonblack students who misbehave are given the consequences of detention, suspension, or mandatory time at the Discipline Alternative Education Program, black students rarely experience any of this. 

Instead, they might be sent to an administrator for yet another friendly conversation and returned to class without comment. If this continues to happen, the student’s parents might start complaining that the teacher is racist and targeting their child unfairly. If so, the teacher can either continue sending the student out in hopes that something changes, or she can simply let the kid play on his phone or laptop and let him take regular hour-long bathroom breaks so he doesn’t disturb the class.

The same approach applies to academic performance. If nonblack students refuse to do their work and receive a failing grade, the teacher will hear little about it. If this happens with a black student, the teacher will need to present extensive documentation of interventions, calls home, and opportunities for reassessment. Thus, for peace of mind, many teachers learn to give all their students, especially black students, a passing grade and make their class a total blowoff. 

While this seems to work out in the short term for everyone, this creates significant problems over time. Those black students who struggle in class in elementary school only become worse in high school. As a rule, they are never held accountable, and this causes them to make little progress over the years. Besides rendering them unfit for the world beyond school, it also prevents them from truly integrating into the school community. Many of the nonblack students learn to steer clear of their black peers and avoid talking to them, which leaves the black students to associate only with one another.

By the time they reach high school, most of the black students will form a group and separate themselves from the rest of the student body, often having a reputation for being rowdy, belligerent, and uncooperative. The administrators will usually stand guard nearby when this group congregates in the halls and harasses other kids, and teachers will look for ways to mitigate their disruptions in class.

Sometimes these students are encouraged to participate in sports. Coaches usually have more latitude for disciplining their players and can channel any excess energy toward something healthy and productive. Even so, athletics can only do so much and sometimes can make the situation worse by giving an otherwise bad student a sense of entitlement for excelling at a sport.

In the end, I believe this hands-off treatment of black students at Frisco ISD played a large part in leading a student like Karmelo Anthony to stab Austin Metcalf. He appears to be one among many difficult black students who never grew up, took responsibility, and developed empathy for his peers.

While Anthony’s parents obviously deserve most of the blame for how their son turned out, the policies of Frisco ISD also likely played a role. Anthony should not have been at that track meet, much less allowed to roam free without supervision. He should have known that instigating fights and attacking students is wrong and unacceptable. He should have been held to the same standards as every other student instead of being left to develop homicidal delusions. It’s telling that no counselor or teacher testified on Anthony’s behalf at his trial. This strongly indicates he had a record of dangerous misconduct.

It wasn’t always this way. In 2020, after an audit from the Texas Education Agency that cited “disproportionate discipline among Black students,” Frisco ISD changed its policy to let black students off the hook. Hopefully, this horrible crime will cause the district to end this negligence. It wasn’t enough that Karmelo Anthony enjoyed all the privileges of living in Frisco; he needed to live up to those privileges by becoming civilized and peaceful.

For Metcalf’s sake as well as Anthony’s, this disciplinary double-standard must end so that another senseless murder doesn’t happen, schools can be safe, and diverse communities like Frisco can come together again. 

Americans Want Republican Leadership That Acts

Trump understands what the consultant class never did: Americans do not want timid caretakers of decline. 

They want leaders and fighters.

The Federalist 

Over the past few weeks, the redistricting battles have revealed something important about the state of American politics: Republican voters are not recoiling from a fight. They are running toward it.

Fights that the old Republican establishment would have treated as too aggressive, risky, or impolite have instead unleashed grassroots energy across the country. Why? Because Republican voters are starving for political courage.

Republican voters have seen what courage looks like in their states. They want to see it in Washington. For too long, Republican politics was defined by caution masquerading as wisdom. Voters sent Republicans to Washington to stop the left, only to watch too many of them obsess over decorum, consultant-approved messaging, and the approval of people who despised them anyway.

Meanwhile, the country they loved was slipping away: Factories closed. Towns hollowed out. Borders collapsed. Crime surged. A managerial class of self-appointed elites had burrowed their way into positions of unaccountable power. They dismissed America’s existence and founding as sin, treated mass migration as inevitable, and told citizens that objecting to the upheaval of their own country was a moral defect.

Voters sent wave after wave of conservative Republicans to Washington to fight back. But every time those conservatives tried to fight, they were told by their own side to calm down, compromise, and accept “political reality.”

But here’s the truth Republicans are finally discovering: political reality is not fixed. It is created by people with the courage to fight to shape it.

The Establishment Approach

President Trump understood this before anyone else in modern American politics.

The old Republican establishment approached politics like managers overseeing a slow and orderly decline. Conservatism became, as many voters saw it, “Leftism driving the speed limit.” Republicans would campaign against open borders, then expand visa programs. They would rail against outsourcing, then support the trade deals that gutted Middle America. They would complain about censorship and cultural radicalism, then continue funding the very institutions driving both.

Trump shattered that corrupt, bad deal. He understood something the consultant class never did: the American people do not want timid caretakers of decline. They want leaders willing to confront the forces destroying their country. They want fighters. More than that, they want winners.

Taking a Stand on Immigration

That lesson extends far beyond redistricting. Look at immigration. For years, Republicans treated immigration as a debate about tone and process. Democrats treated it as a battle for political and cultural power. One side was trying to manage the system. The other side was trying to transform the country. And because Democrats understood the stakes while Republicans often refused to, the left dominated the issue for decades.

The Biden administration didn’t forget to secure the border; it intentionally dismantled it. Millions of illegal immigrants poured into the country from every corner of the globe. Entire cities and communities were transformed. Americans watched their wages collapse under labor competition while housing costs exploded and public resources were strained beyond recognition.

And yet whenever ordinary citizens objected, they were smeared as racists for wanting a country with borders.

What changed the trajectory of that debate was not polite disagreement over how to best tinker around the edges. It was taking a stand. It was people refusing to surrender. It was leaders willing to endure media hysteria, elite outrage, and nonstop attacks in order to actually fight for the interests of the American people.

That is why the answer cannot be another white paper, another bipartisan commission, or another promise to “secure the border” someday. It requires deportations, enforcement, ending the incentives that draw illegal aliens here, and using every lawful power of government to restore sovereignty.

Challenging the Consensus

The same pattern exists on trade, censorship, crime, and DEI. For decades, the bipartisan consensus insisted there was no alternative to globalization, mass migration, and the steady transfer of power away from normal Americans and into the hands of government bureaucracies, multinational corporations, leftist nongovernmental organizations, and international institutions.

But what happens when people finally challenge that consensus? They discover that it’s not much of a consensus at all. They discover that it has survived so long not because it is popular, but because too few people were willing to fight against it. That is the central political lesson of the Trump era.

The managerial ruling class depends on intimidation. They need conservatives to believe resistance is futile. They need Republicans to fear media backlash more than they fear disappointing their own voters.

That system only works if Republicans accept the premise that they are morally obligated to surrender. The moment conservatives stop accepting that premise, the entire political landscape changes.

We’ve seen that happen repeatedly over the last decade when Americans have fought back. The border debate changed when Americans refused to be shamed into silence. The DEI debate changed when parents, workers, and public officials called it out by what it is, cultural Marxism and racial discrimination. The censorship debate changed when conservatives stopped pretending that Big Tech “neutrality” was real. The trade debate changed when voters forced Washington to admit that “free trade” had not been free or fair for the towns it destroyed.

The political establishment, the media, and the activist class spent years insisting these issues were settled forever. Then millions of Americans decided they no longer cared what those institutions thought of them. That changed everything.

Americans Want Courage

The American people are demanding conviction from their leaders. They want to know that someone is willing to stand between them and the forces hollowing out their country. They want leaders who understand that politics is not an academic seminar or a networking opportunity. They understand it is a contest over who holds power and for what ends that power will be used.

The left has never been confused about power. It captures institutions, defends them, and uses them. It does not surrender bureaucracies, universities, media platforms, corporations, or courts out of some abstract commitment to procedural fair play.

Republicans cannot defeat that machine while remaining psychologically trapped in the politics of managed retreat or “standing athwart history yelling stop.”

Courage is the proof that you actually believe your principles are true.

Americans are not inspired by carefully triangulated statements crafted to avoid criticism from people who already despise them. They are inspired by courage and defiance and by leaders who lead and are willing to absorb the attacks and keep going anyway.

Because ordinary Americans do that every day in their own lives. The welder trying to raise a family on wages undercut by illegal labor. The mother confronting ideological propaganda in her child’s classroom. The police officer asked to maintain order after politicians invited disorder. The small-business owner buried under regulations written by people who have never had to make payroll.

These people understand struggle. They understand sacrifice. What they cannot stand is cowardice masquerading as prudence. The Republican Party is strongest when it remembers that it exists to represent a nation, not merely to manage a government.

Politics is not therapy or performance art. It is the mechanism through which a people either defends its interests and inheritance or loses them. The reason that message resonates is because Americans know we are living through one of those moments where the stakes are real. People sense that this is a hinge point in the life of the country. In moments like this, caution is not neutrality. Surrender is not moderation. Retreat is not wisdom.

You either fight for your country or you watch someone else remake it. That is the lesson Republicans should take from these battles.

Do not apologize for fighting. Do not confuse cowardice with prudence. Do not let the people who broke the country lecture you about the manners required to save it. Fight. Take the slings and arrows. Ignore the hysterics.

And most importantly: never forget that courage is contagious.

Here's What to Expect in Today's Elections

Townhall 

There are several primary and runoff races across the nation on Tuesday, and some of them could have sweeping implications for the country's political landscape. President Donald Trump has weighed in on many upcoming contests, including the mayoral race in Washington, D.C. Along with the standard races, the special primary election to replace former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is slated for Tuesday night. 

Here’s what to watch:

Washington, D.C.

In the heavily blue city, the Democratic mayoral primary has multiple candidates, including DSA-backed Janeese Lewis George, former city councilman Kenyan McDuffie, and businessman Gary Goodweather.

The race to be Mayor Muriel Bowser’s successor comes as President Donald Trump has already ordered a federal takeover of the city’s police force, and he said last week that a Lewis George victory could lead to the city losing Home Rule.

“Well, I wouldn’t like it. And maybe we take back Washington and run it on a federal basis. We won’t put up with it. We’re not gonna lose our businesses. By the way, Washington is now a safe, beautiful place,” Trump told reporters, which led to condemnation from the Democrats in the field.

“We are not going to get ICE off our streets or protect Home Rule by fearing this President,” Lewis George, a sitting councilwoman, responded. 

“Threatening DC because you do not like how our residents vote is an attack on democracy itself. The people of DC elect the Mayor of DC. And they want someone who will stand up to Trump,” the Democrat continued, Townhall previously reported. 

Georgia

In the United States Senate race, Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) and former football coach Derek Dooley are both hoping to take on Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) in the general election. The November race is rated “Lean Democrat” and is considered one of the most competitive in the country.

Collins is backed by President Donald Trump, whereas Dooley has the backing of Gov. Brian Kemp.

Trump said Sunday on Truth Social that “Mike Collins is a true Friend, Fighter, and WARRIOR, who has been with us from the very beginning, and has my Complete and Total Endorsement to be your next United States Senator.”

Meanwhile, Dooley focused on his “strong support of Governor Brian Kemp” in a statement after Trump’s endorsement. 

“I have great respect for President Trump and look forward to working with him in the Senate,” Dooley added in an X post.

In the battle for governor, Trump-backed Lt. Gov. Burt Jones is facing off against Rick Jackson, who is supported by Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). 

Whoever wins the runoff will take on former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, who did not have a runoff after winning over 56% of the vote in the Democratic primary. 

Alabama

Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL) and Navy SEAL Jared Hudson are up against one another in bids to succeed Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who’s running for governor. 

Trump announced that he is backing Moore. 

“Congressman Barry Moore, an America First Patriot who has been with me from the very beginning (He was the first Elected Official in the Country to Endorse me!), is running for the United States Senate in Alabama, a place I love and WON BIG in 2016, 2020, and 2024, getting the Highest Vote in that Great State’s History.

The primary is rated “Solid Republican” by the Cook Political Report.

Oklahoma

As Gov. Kevin Stitt (R-OK) is termed out, Attorney General Gentner Drummond, former Oklahoma House Speaker Charles McCall, former Oklahoma Secretary of Public Safety Chip Keating, and former state Sen. Mike Mazzei are running in the Republican primary in the deep red state. 

Mazzei is backed by Trump, and most polls have indicated either him or Drummond leading. If nobody gets a majority on Tuesday night, there will be an August runoff election. 

California

In California’s 14th Congressional District, the deep blue district’s top-two will be the one to watch, with state Sen. Aisha Webb and former Dublin Mayor Melissa Hernandez being considered the top Democrats in the race. Meanwhile, Wendy Huang is the Republican in the field. 

The seat was left vacant after Swalwell resigned in April amid numerous sexual misconduct allegations, which also led to the end of his gubernatorial bid. The special election between the top two candidates is not until August 18. There are currently four vacancies in the narrow Republican-majority House of Representatives. 

♦️𝐖³𝐏 𝐃𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝

 

W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

posted by DarkGoldenMan

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time.