Tuesday, July 21, 2026

Islam and America Are Incompatible


Patriotic Americans have been celebrating their country’s two-hundred-fiftieth birthday all year.  Although an increasing number of Democrats now despise America and even admit to feeling revulsion at the sight of Old Glory waving in the wind, 2026 has been an incredible opportunity to commemorate in grand fashion America’s founding principles, accomplishments, and enduring legacy.  

Perhaps it is the heightened sense of American patriotism hanging in the air this year that is leading many ordinary citizens to become much more angry about the anti-American forces working to “fundamentally transform” the nation, to borrow President Barack Obama’s menacing description of the kind of “change” he seeks. 

On social media platforms last week, videos spread of a Home Depot shopping experience in Dearborn, Michigan.  Signs throughout the store were in Arabic.  The original poster claimed (and later reporting confirmed) that major retailers throughout the Midwestern city — including Walmart, Costco, Kroger, and Albertsons — also include signs written in Arabic.  The poster concluded, “This is not assimilation, this is an Islamic Takeover of America.” 

Commenters who responded to the videos were furious.  One warned, “What are we doing, America?  Are we capitulating to these Muslim invaders?  Watering down our American standards by plastering signs in Arabic?  ENGLISH is the official language of America.”

In describing the social media firestorm, journalist Bob Unruh pointed out that Dearborn, Michigan, now has a majority Muslim population, a Muslim police force, Muslim city officials, and official Muslim holidays.  Dearborn’s Muslim mayor recently “told a Christian he’s not welcome in the city.”  Dearborn’s Muslim police chief recently “bragged about how a large increase in the number of Arab police officers was better serving the city and ended his boast with a Muslim prayer.”  Dearborn recently renamed a city street in honor of a resident who has allegedly supported Islamic terrorism in the past.

Dearborn, Michigan, the hometown of Henry Ford and his Ford Motor Company, has been conquered.  There is no other way to describe the reality of the situation.  No matter how much Democrats pretend that Islam is compatible with American ideals, it is not.  Christians founded America.  Christian virtue provided the cement for America’s foundations in personal liberty.  And the growth of Islamism in the United States represents a threat to the nation’s survival. 

In one particularly egregious example of Barack Obama’s anti-American propaganda, the former president used to tell listeners a demonstrable lie — that Muslims played an instrumental role in America’s founding.  In 2010, he said, “Islam has always been part of America.”  In 2014, Obama thanked Muslims for “building the very fabric of our nation” and insisted that they represented “the core of our democracy.”  Obama even claimed that Americans share “common values” with Islam.

As many pundits pointed out at the time, the Founding Fathers were quite clear in their writings that they considered Islam a dangerous creed at odds with Americans’ love for God and liberty.  When President Thomas Jefferson sent the Navy to the Barbary Coast to protect American merchant ships from Islamic pirates, he took time to read the Quran and correctly concluded that Muslims are commanded to “plunder and enslave” non-Muslims.  When Tripoli renewed attacks on American ships a decade later, President John Adams wrote that Islam’s founder and prophet was “a military fanatic,” while describing Islamic law as “contemptible.”  President John Quincy Adams later wrote that Islam is “violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.”  America’s sixth president argued, “The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Muhammad is the prophet of God,” rendering Islam inherently incompatible with America’s Judeo-Christian ethic, civic virtue, and democratic peace. 

A hundred years later, Winston Churchill wrote of the manifest difference between Christianity and Islam:  

“Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination.  But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance.  It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.  In a moment the fruits of patient toil, the prospects of material prosperity, the fear of death itself, are flung aside…All rational considerations are forgotten…they become…as dangerous and sensible as mad dogs: fit only to be treated as such…convulsed in an ecstasy of religious bloodthirstiness…civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism.  The forces of progress clash with those of reaction.  The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace.  Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed.”

Despite a half-century of anti-Western propaganda that has aggressively tried to rebrand Islam as “the religion of peace,” it is important to note that Churchill correctly described Christianity as the “religion of peace” and Islam as the “religion of blood and war.”  While Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats spend inordinate resources attempting to rewrite history, there has never been anything “peaceful” about Islam.  It is also antithetical to America’s founding principles.

Driving this last point home, Islamic supremacist Linda Sarsour just released a video plea for Americans to replace the Declaration of Independence.  As real Americans know, the Declaration is distinct from the U.S. Constitution.  Although it expresses Americans’ founding principles, it is not a governing charter or legal document that can be repealed.  Sarsour doesn’t care.  Calling the two-hundred-fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence “quote unquote ‘America’s birthday,’” she argues that “marginalized” people should “want to build a document that is our values and our principles.”  She then tells her followers that they will “fight back” and “win.”  From Sarsour’s point of view, then, “winning” is about aborting America’s birthday and replacing the United States with some foreign nation founded on her Islamic supremacist values.  

The hijab-wearing Linda Sarsour is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization that embraces revolutionary violence.  She helped elect New York City’s Muslim Mayor Zohran Mamdani.  She is working to elect Michigan’s Muslim senate candidate, Abdul El-Sayed.  She hates America.  But because she is one of seven children whom her “Palestinian” immigrant parents had in Brooklyn, the U.S. Supreme Court says that she’s an American citizen.  Despite everything Americans have given her, she feels entitled to destroy America on behalf of her Islamic brothers and sisters living in the Middle East.  In return for waging war against the United States, Sarsour’s “non-profit” organizations have received millions of dollars from American taxpayers.  

This is insane.  American taxpayers subsidize Islamic supremacists working to conquer the United States.  As one angry commenter told Sarsour, “You were fortunate that just because you were born here that you can claim US citizenship.  Not a single strand of your DNA is American.”  Another called Sarsour’s anti-Declaration of Independence video “subversion” and concluded, “These people have to go.”

One thing is certain: The threat of Islam to America is not going away.  Decades of open borders policies have invited millions of Muslims into the United States.  Some assimilate.  Many do not.  And when Muslim immigrants become a significant percentage of any local American population, they immediately project their numerical strength.  Muslims choose to build mosques next to the World Trade Center site in Manhattan, where Islamic terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001.  They build giant mosques that overwhelm rural American towns.  Muslims blast Islamic calls to prayer over loudspeakers in cities and towns across America.  Muslims pull out prayer mats and transform busy public squares into open-air mosques.  This is nothing less than a declaration of Islamic supremacyWe are taking over America.

Islam and America are incompatible.


Podcast thread for July 21

 


Zzzzzzzzz..... 😴

Who Watches the Watchers?

 Who Watches the Watchers?

Trust is important. Verification is essential

Brian C. Joondeph for American Thinker 


More than 2,000 years ago, the Roman poet Juvenal posed a timeless questionQuis custodiet ipsos custodes? — “Who will guard the guards themselves?” or “Who watches the watchers?”

The Romans could never have imagined artificial intelligence, facial recognition, or nationwide networks of automated license-plate readers. Yet their question may be even more relevant today than it was three millennia ago.

Watching the watchers, graphic

Image created by ChatGPT

Recent debate over Flock Safetycameras illustrates why.

The cameras have become an invaluable law enforcement tool. A stolen vehicle that crosses several jurisdictions can now be identified in minutes rather than days. An abducted child can sometimes be located before the child reaches another state. 

Investigators can reconstruct a suspect's movements at speeds unimaginable only a generation ago. These advances are remarkable and save lives and solve crimes.

Few Americans would willingly return to the days when solving a crime depended solely on eyewitness accounts or grainy surveillance footage from convenience stores.

Yet reports have surfaced that individual officers allegedly used these systems to monitor former spouses, girlfriends, or acquaintances for purely personal reasons. If true, those actions are not an indictment of the technology or of law enforcement as a whole. They are a reminder of a far older truth: every concentration of power invites the possibility of abuse.

Technology doesn’t change human nature. 

It amplifies it.

Throughout history, every transformative invention has brought both promise and peril.

Fire allowed our ancestors to cook food, survive harsh winters, and build civilization. It also destroyed cities.

Water sustains every living creature on Earth. Floods and tsunamis destroy entire communities. Even drinking too much water can be fatal.

Electricity powers hospitals, schools, factories, and our homes. It can also be deadly.

Nuclear physics brought us clean electrical power capable of supplying entire cities. It also produced weapons capable of destroying civilization.

Artificial intelligence can help physicians diagnose disease, assist students with learning, help travelers navigate foreign countries, and help writers organize their thoughts. It can also generate convincing misinformation, fabricate legal citations, or automate fraud on an unprecedented scale.

The technology itself is rarely the issue.

The people using it—and the safeguards governing them — are.

Unfortunately, discussions about emerging technologies often become polarized. One side insists the technology should be embraced without hesitation, while the other argues it should be feared or even prohibited.

Neither approach reflects reality.

Whether we like it or not, modern life is already built on surveillance and digital tracking. Every airline passenger presents identification and is photographed. Smartphones constantly reveal our location. Credit cards, toll roads, and countless online transactions leave permanent electronic footprints. The idea that Americans can somehow “go off the grid” is largely a nostalgic fantasy.

That ship sailed years ago.

The real question is not whether technology exists.

It is who controls it, how it is used, and what safeguards prevent misuse.

The risks posed by powerful technologies generally fall into three categories: malicious misuse, human error, and technological flaws.

A rogue police officer abusing a surveillance database constitutes malicious misuse. An investigator entering the wrong license plate or drawing the wrong conclusion is human error. Even when everyone acts in good faith, facial recognition software, artificial intelligence, and other complex systems remain imperfect.

Perhaps an even greater danger is assuming that sophisticated technology is somehow infallible.

It isn’t.

Artificial intelligence occasionally invents facts. Attorneys have embarrassed themselves by submitting legal briefs that cite entirely fictitious court cases generated by AI. The technology was impressive, but it simply wasn’t correct.

Facial recognition has improved enormously over the past decade, but no algorithm is perfect. A poor-quality image, unusual lighting, or an unfortunate similarity between two individuals could generate a false investigative lead.

Modern medicine offers a useful analogy. No competent physician makes a diagnosis based solely on a single laboratory value or imaging study. We correlate laboratory results with the patient’s history, physical examination, and additional testing. A screening test points us toward a diagnosis; it does not establish one beyond question.

Technology should inform human judgment, not replace it.

The same principle should apply to surveillance technologies. A facial recognition match or license plate detection should trigger an investigation, not conclude one.

Nor should every concern be treated as an attack on law enforcement.

Medicine has its rogue physicians.

Law has unethical attorneys.

Finance has dishonest brokers.

Politics has corrupt officeholders.

No profession is immune to bad actors.

We do not conclude that all physicians are incompetent because one doctor commits malpractice. Nor should isolated misconduct by individual officers serve as an indictment of the thousands of honorable men and women who wear a badge every day and use these technologies responsibly to protect their communities.

The issue is accountability.

In medicine, every access to an electronic medical record is logged. Hospitals routinely audit those records. Years ago, hospital employees made headlines for improperly accessing the medical records of celebrities out of curiosity. Those audit trails made the misconduct discoverable, and consequences followed.

If surveillance systems maintain similar audit logs — as Flock reportedly does — the obvious question is: Who is reviewing them?

An audit trail is valuable only if someone conducts the audit.

Imagine a system in which every database search is permanently recorded, random audits are routine, unauthorized access results in suspension or termination, and deliberate misuse carries criminal penalties. Public confidence would increase dramatically without diminishing the technology’s legitimate usefulness.

The technology wouldn’t change.

Only accountability would.

The Framers of the Constitution understood this principle long before computers existed. They didn’t design a government on the assumption that those in power would always act honorably. They designed it around checks and balances because they understood human nature.

James Madison famously observed that if men were angels, no government would be needed.

Neither are algorithms.

Nor are those entrusted with them.

Perhaps the greatest mistake we can make is demanding perfection. No technology created by human beings will ever be flawless. Airplanes occasionally crash despite extraordinary safety records. Nuclear reactors fail despite layers of engineering safeguards. Self-driving vehicles make mistakes. Human beings certainly do.

The answer is not to abandon progress.

The answer is to build systems that anticipate imperfection.

Good engineering assumes that components will fail.

Good medicine assumes that diagnoses can be wrong.

Good government should assume that power, if left unchecked, will eventually be abused.

Good aviation assumes that pilots can make mistakes.

The challenge before us is therefore not whether to embrace new technologies. That decision has already been made. Flock cameras, artificial intelligence, facial recognition, drones, and innovations we have not yet imagined will become increasingly woven into everyday life.

The enduring question is the one Juvenal posed twenty centuries ago.

Who watches the watchers?

The answer cannot be simply “trust them.”

It must be Ronald Reagan’s famous advice, “Trust but verify.”

Powerful technologies deserve equally robust oversight. That oversight protects not only individual liberty but also the integrity of the institutions that use these remarkable tools. When the public knows there are meaningful safeguards against abuse, confidence grows rather than eroding.

Progress without accountability breeds distrust. Accountability without progress breeds stagnation. Liberty requires both innovation and oversight.


Islam and the Left Will Both Bring Tyranny


Townhall's Amy Curtis recently published an excellent article entitled, “One of the DSA’s Biggest Influencers Wants to Shred the Declaration of Independence, Too.” Amy discussed Linda Sarsour, a “radical Islamist activist who works with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR),” and who helped Zohran Mamdani win the mayor’s office in New York. She wants to, in effect, dispense with the American Declaration of Independence and “build a document that is our [Islamic] values and principles and bring millions of Americans around it.” In effect, divide America, and conquer the country.

We are being warned. Are we listening? Most Americans aren’t. Free people never do until they are lined up against the wall. And then, their last thought is, “What happened?” Too many of them die never knowing.

Folks, tyranny and slavery are far more common in human history than freedom is. And, frankly, tyranny and slavery are easier; just do what you are told, and let somebody else take care of you. Freedom entails individual responsibility, virtue, and risk, and often blood to defend that freedom. Those are prices too many people, down through history, have not been willing to pay.

The Democratic Party and its offspring, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), are taking advantage of this historical truth to try to enslave as many Americans as possible to dependence upon government, to create a tyrannical, totalitarian system where “government gives us our rights” (Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA))—the very definition of totalitarianism. The movement is large and powerful—though freedom-fighters have not given up yet—and the radical Islamists like Sarsour and Mamdani are part of the tools the DSA is using—or, maybe vice versa. But the Democrats had better watch out; if they give Islam too much rope, Islam will hang them, too.

Islam, though it has some similarities, is not a “leftist” philosophy like communism, but Islamic politicians, like Zohran Mamdani, are not above using whatever is available (except freedom, of course) to further their cause. And Islam is a totalitarian system. Look at the history of the Middle East. Linda Sarsour wants a document for America built upon her [Islamic] “values and principles.” And that means totalitarianism, because that is all those people have ever known! She rejects the Declaration of Independence because it is totally contrary to Islamic principles. The countries Islam has controlled have never had freedom like the Declaration promises Americans; they have forever been totalitarian. Those are the “values and principles” Sarsour (and no doubt Mamdani) wants to bring to America. And, apparently, lots of Americans, at least in New York, want them, too. Or, more likely, are simply too dumb to know what they are voting for.

Sarsour and Mamdani are not Americans, or especially, not Americans first. They, and their ilk, are Muslims; that’s what they are in their essence. That’s what they’ve been taught is Supreme Truth; that is where their highest allegiance is, and that’s what they want to bring to America. Islam was spread by force, not by evangelism, and they’ll use that method (force), if necessary, to spread it to America. All they need are the numbers. And they will not let leftist communists stand in their way, either. Remember what the Afghans did when attacked by the USSR. Islam does not want godless communism. Or, frankly, godless, licentious, decadent democracy, either. Perverts better be careful who they vote for.

This is simply the nature and teaching of Islam. America was founded upon the eternal principles our Creator endowed us with as embodied in the Judeo-Christian religions—life, liberty, property. Jesus NEVER ordered His religion to be extended by force, as Muhammad did, and any time “Christianity” has been spread violently, it has done so in direct contradiction to the teachings of its Founder. Jesus tried to change people’s hearts, and that can be done only via persuasion, not by force. And that is why true Christianity is a religion of freedom and peace, not of force, violence, and ultimately tyranny. Islam expanded via the latter means (thank you, Charles Martel, for stopping them, or we might all be speaking Arabic today). Leftist communism did the same thing: expansion by war and by killing, torturing, or imprisoning anyone who disagreed with them. Islam and leftism, governmentally, are two peas in a pod. They both want totalitarian power in America. And right now, they need each other to defeat the greater enemy, the Declaration of Independence and Judeo-Christianity.

So, what would Linda Sarsour’s “values and principles” bring to America? The Muslim Sultan of Delhi, Ala-ud-din Khalji, who ruled from 1296-1316, told us: “The Hindus will never become submissive and obedient until they are reduced to poverty.” If you put people in poverty, you’ll certainly have the totalitarian control you want.

Is it coming to America? Here is a recent Breitbart headline: “Zohran Mamdani’s New York City Includes a 12-Block-Long Homeless Encampment in Manhattan.” Islam and leftism do have something in common economically, i.e., socialism, government control of the economy. New York City is slowly becoming the kind of city that socialism always produces: a very small, exalted class of rich elites who have all the power, ruling a huge “submissive and obedient” class that has been “reduced to poverty.” That’s what the Soviet Union had until it simply could no longer financially sustain the system and collapsed. It’s what communist China had until Mao finally died and Deng Xiaoping realized that, unless he made some compromises with capitalism and had the government borrow and spend untold trillions of Chinese yuan, communist China would follow the Soviet Union and the dodo bird into extinction. Sarsour’s are not just the “values and principles” of Islam; they are also the “values and principles” of socialism.

We are being warned, folks. We are being warned! Are enough people listening? Not so far. And too many won’t until it’s way too late.


🎭 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. 


Hunter Biden Says This Was His Father's Biggest Mistake When He Was President



Hunter Biden said his father, former President Joe Biden, made his worst mistake when he appointed Merrick Garland as attorney general.

During an interview with leftist podcaster and boxed wine aficionado Jennifer Welch on the I’ve Had It podcast, Hunter discussed his father’s presidency.  “My take is this, and removing myself from it as much as I can, my personal feelings, is the single greatest mistake of my father’s administration was the leadership of Merrick Garland,” he said.

He continued, saying that “the reason that we are in the situation that we’re in right now can almost… by the way, the buck has to stop with my dad. He was the president and he chose him” and criticized Garland for failing to move faster against President Donald Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol building.

Hunter contended that the riot was a “planned conspiracy” and a “concerted and planned effort” that started before the 2020 election and that Garland was too cautious in going after those involved. He agreed with Welch’s assertion that Joe Biden chose Garland to appeal to Republicans and make up for his blocked Supreme Court nomination.

Interestingly enough, Joe Biden expressed similar regrets years earlier. According to Bob Woodward’s 2024 book, “War,” he told an associate that he “Should never have picked Garland” while discussing the Justice Department’s prosecution of his son. “This is never going to f*****g go away.”

Garland’s tenure included several controversies and drew criticism from people on both sides. Folks on the left took him to task for taking too long to target those involved in the riot and Trump’s supposed role in the violence. He appointed special counsel Jack Smith in November 2022 after Trump announced another presidential run. This meant the federal cases Democrats tried to use against him did not reach trial before the 2024 election.

Garland also appointed David Weiss as special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden in 2023 after a plea deal collapsed.

Folks on the right repeatedly criticized Garland for unfairly targeting conservatives and Trump supporters, like when he worked with Teachers Unions to label parents as domestic terrorists for speaking out against the infusion of far-left ideology in government-run schools.


The Horrible Way the Biden Admin Messed Up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve


RedState 

Fox Business correspondent Edward Lawrence recently reported on a big problem that the Biden administration left with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). 

He explained to Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner how the SPR was now at a 43-year low, noting how the Biden administration had drained 180 million barrels before the 2022 midterm elections. 

It was clearly for political reasons to help in the elections, not for the reason you're supposed to do it - for emergencies in the market supply. Then Biden never fully refilled it, Lawrence explained. But it gets worse than that. 

The current Undersecretary of Energy, Kyle Haustveit, who is now in charge of the SPR, detailed to Lawrence in an interview how the prior administration even left one of the four SPR sites inoperable. Haustveit said the Trump team now had to get more equipment to that site because the Biden team bought equipment to repair the site, and then just left it out to deteriorate. Because of the weather, it's no longer usable. The Biden administration "completely wasted taxpayer dollars" on that, Haustveit said, and then it "sat on surface" and they "didn't install" it. 

"They also failed to maintain some of the sites," Haustveit also revealed. He told Lawrence he thought the Biden team didn't have any long-term plan for maintenance or working on the sites. So now the Trump administration has to do it to make up for the mess that was left by the prior administration.

Crazy. Not only draining it for the wrong reasons and putting us in danger thereby, but wasting our money and not even properly maintaining the reserve when it is such a critical resource for national security. Now that releasing oil might make sense, not for political reasons - but for the right reasons - supply issues, Biden's actions have made that more problematic because you don't want to let it get too low. 

Lawrence further explained that while the Trump administration had been releasing some of the supply to deal with the current situation with Iran, cooperating in an effort coordinated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) of worldwide strategic supplies to stabilize global energy markets, for everything they are releasing, they would replace it with more in a swap program. So they're looking out for the reserve and making sure that it isn't going to be depleted further or messed up like it was under Biden. 


State Dept: Code Pink, DSA, People's Forum Among Groups in Cuba-Linked Rapid Response Network


RedState 

The political left loves to protest. They seem to do a lot more protesting than people on the right do; people on the right, after all, have jobs. Now, though, we may see another round of protests and potentially riots, as Cuba is reportedly organizing far-left American activist groups to target American military bases, ICE facilities and other federal installations if there is any overt American action against Cuba.

A new State Department report argues that Cuba has cultivated a network of American activist organizations that can be mobilized against U.S. policy, citing a publicly posted plan for protests at U.S. military bases, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities and federal buildings as a recent example.

The June "National Rapid Response Plan" was distributed by the National Network on Cuba, a U.S. coalition of more than 60 organizations. The State Department links the coalition to the Cuban government through its relationship with the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples, or ICAP, a government entity sanctioned in June for allegedly supporting Cuban intelligence activities.

The plan calls for "coordinated nationwide actions" within 24 hours of a U.S. military attack — or the "imminent threat" of one — and says its goal is to make it "politically and materially costly for the U.S. government to wage war on Cuba."

The State Department report, which you can view here, states in part (emphasis added):

In June 2026, NNOC began distributing a “National Rapid Response Plan” outlining a detailed strategy for activating and launching “coordinated nationwide actions” against federal institutions, U.S. military bases, and ICE detention centers and field offices in the United States within 24 hours of U.S. military action (or the imminent threat of it) against Cuba. The plan, which purports to be a blueprint to “make it politically and materially costly for the U.S. government to wage war on Cuba,” meticulously details specific activation triggers, target categories and priorities, tiered action strategies – with guidance tailored to geography and population density – and operational timeline for coordinating actions across its nationwide network, establishing different action timetables depending on when the trigger occurs so as to achieve “rapid mobilization…across timezones.” 

The document is explicit about the Cuban network’s kinship with domestic left-wing causes, instructing activists to target ICE detention centers and field offices in a strategic effort to link “Cuba solidarity to anti-ICE/immigrant defense work happening nationwide.” (In addition to the three priority target categories – federal buildings, U.S. military bases and recruitment offices, and ICE facilities – “sports arenas during high-visibility events” are offered as a fourth “optional target”). 

The groups Cuba has reportedly approached include Code Pink, the People's Forum, the Democratic Socialists of America, and the Communist Party USA. This is quite a laundry list of American far-left groups.

This "National Rapid Response Plan" includes some alarming specifics, and specifies a 24-hour response time in the event any action is taken by the United States against Cuba. This presumably means any military action, but might also apply to a blockade or any similar economic sanction. In major cities, this could include mass protests against any federal installation, including but probably not limited to courthouses, military bases, and ICE/Border Patrol installations.

What's really concerning about this is the potential for things to get out of control, and fast. Protests from the far-left have the distinct tendency to become violent, and with this plan, these Cuban proxies are planning to mobilize thousands of unhinged far-left nuts to flood the areas around any federal installations. We're already seeing this with the attempts to interfere with ICE agents in the performance of their duties; this Cuban plan could take that up an order of magnitude.

There are, at present, no indications that the Trump administration is planning any military action against Cuba. It probably won't be necessary. Cuba seems to be collapsing quite well all on its own. But this is another indication of a disturbing trend in American politics, that being that the far-left is increasingly willing to resort to violence. What the far-left doesn't understand is that, in the end, it won't work out at all like they think it will.


Tom Homan Went Off After We Learned This About the Suspected NYC Federal Office Firebomber



Earlier today, a man was arrested for allegedly setting off an incendiary device outside a New York City federal building, one that houses not only the FBI's New York field offices, but ICE offices and immigration courts. 

Here's more video of the suspect, allegedly pouring a flammable liquid and igniting it outside the building.

After months of spouting inflammatory rhetoric against ICE and the federal government, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani issued a statement on the attack.

"Our administration will continue to ensure that every New Yorker is safe in their city — and hold accountable any who threaten that," he wrote on X.

Now we're learning that the suspect had 'anti-ICE stuff' on him, and Tom Homan went off on Democrats for inciting violence against ICE and federal immigration agents.

"Why does he think ICE is bad? Why does he want to attack ICE? Again, because the last year, year and a half, all he's heard from ... Democratic members of Congress and sanctuary city mayors and governors is that ICE is not a real law enforcement agency, ICE is separating families, arresting people in churches and hospitals which none of thatis true. So I'm sure he's been educated by the wrong people and that's why he chose to take actions," Homan said.

"Because every time they talk about this hateful rhetoric," Homan continued, "there's that small percentage on the far Left who will take some sort of ridiculous action because they feel emboldened because members of Congress are agreeing with him that ICE needs to go away."

Homan also had a message for Mamdani himself.

"First of all, I appreciate the comments from Mamdani and Jeffries but, too little, too late," Homan said. "They spent a year attacking ICE, comparing ICE ... let's abolish ICE because they're fascists. ICE are Nazis, ICE are racists, ICE is the secret police, ICE isn't a real law enforcement agency."

"I see the signs at every protest, 'Resist.' So, look, they have educated people that they can resist ICE and the hateful rhetoric continues," he added. "We've had some tragedies recently because people didn't want to comply with ICE. This is yet another example today, what happened in front of the federal building, is another example of attacking ICE and I'm sure if you ask that person why he did it, he's going to repeat the talking points I just said that you hear from Democratic members of Congress, the Democratic mayors and governors who simply want ICE to go away."

Homan also vowed zero tolerance for this crime.

"We've got a strong leader in the Attorney General's Office, we've got a strong leader in the FBI," Homan said. "President Trump has said a thousand times we will not stand by and let anybody violate the laws. Especially when it comes to domestic terror acts like this or attacks against ICE officers. Attacks against ICE officers are up over 1,400 percent. Zero tolerance. President Trump told me this himself: zero tolerance. You attack ICE, you'll be held to the highest standards of the law.

Homan also got angry with the press.

"Guys, ICE agents are moms and dads, too. They don't hang their heart on a hook every day to do this job. And it's not just an attack on the ICE agents, it's an attack on their spouses and children and no one knows that better than me. I can't even go get a quart of milk at a grocery store without a security detail. Why? Because I'm enforcing the laws of this country. It's pathetic and disgusting," Homan said before walking off.