United Nations votes 164-1 for Equal Earth map after US brands it ‘radical ideological project’

The United Nations on Friday was one vote shy of unanimously adopting a new map of the world that shows Africa’s true size, making the continent appear far larger than it does on traditional maps.

The United States was the only one of 165 member nations to vote against the U.N. General Assembly resolution to accept the Equal Earth map projection, which depicts countries and continents in their true relative sizes, according to the map creator’s website.

Six nations abstained, including Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Moldova, Serbia and Ukraine.

Yaryna Ferencevych, the deputy U.S. representative to the U.N. Economic and Social Council, said the resolution was presented as “an anodyne effort to update cartographic proportions” but was, in her view, part of a “much larger and more radical ideological project.”

Keep reading

Radical DSA Candidate Explains That She is ‘Very Excited’ to Bring ‘Black Socialism’ to Congress

Darializa Chevalier is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) who is running for office in New York’s 13th congressional district.

During an appearance on something called ELR News this week, she explained that she is ‘very excited’ to bring ‘black socialism’ to congress.

It’ not entirely clear how black socialism is different from regular socialism, but we suppose she gets points for creativity.

Breitbart News reports:

New York socialist congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier (D) is continuing to advocate for socialism, a leftist system that is threatening the United States.

Her comments came as radical candidates in the Democrat Party are moving toward the midterm elections.

Chevalier mentioned the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) while speaking during an interview Friday on ELR News with Kevin Ortega-Rojas.

“I think with DSA specifically, something that I’m very excited to do is to build black socialism within the caucuses of DSA. And something that my team and I were very intentional about we’re making sure that we weren’t just talking about socialism broadly, that we were talking about the legacy of socialism in our district, right? A legacy of black socialism, Latino socialism, that focused on racial justice as economic justice,” she said…

Keep reading

Where Is the Outrage? Profound Autism Didn’t Used to Exist — Now It’s Everywhere

If I had walked into my fourth-grade classroom in 1978 and told my teacher that one day virtually every school district in America would have multiple classrooms dedicated to children who could not speak, who required one-on-one aides, who wandered, who self-injured, who had seizures, who would require lifelong care, she would have assumed I was describing some dystopian science fiction novel. Yet here we are. Why are we just accepting it?

Country artist Tyler Hudson came bombing through the U.S. last week (he’s a Texan living in Australia), and one of his Instagram posts about autism did something that really doesn’t happen to me anymore after 22 years as an autism dad: it choked me up.

His post was a read-aloud excerpt from his new book, “The Missing Lyrics,” that discussed a poem written by his NT (neurotypical) daughter about his teenage son with profound autism, whose name is Lyric.

I was fine until these words:

“He’s never been to a party, never walked into a friend’s house … if I could cure him I would. Acceptance looks really nice on a T-Shirt until he bites himself so hard he bleeds. If I could cure him I would … It’s love that makes us fight for a cure, a life.”

I want to personally thank Tyler Hudson and his family for reigniting something in me that’s faded with time and with my focus on optimizing my son’s life: outrage.

I’m 57 years old, which means I have one advantage in this conversation that many people don’t: I remember the world before profound autism became commonplace.

That’s not nostalgia talking. It’s memory.

I went to elementary school in the 1970s. I played Little League. I rode my bike around the neighborhood until the streetlights came on. I went to church, summer camp, birthday parties, county fairs, airports, shopping malls and movie theaters.

I sat in packed gymnasiums and crowded cafeterias. I stood in line for the Scrambler at the fair behind a hundred kids I’d never met. I was surrounded by children everywhere I went, constantly, for my entire childhood.

Looking back, I can remember many of them. The kid who always picked his nose. The kid who couldn’t stop talking. The class clown, the bully, the shy girl, the future valedictorian. I even remember the girl in my sister’s grade with Down syndrome, because there was exactly one.

What I cannot remember — not a single time, not once, not anywhere — is a child who couldn’t speak. A child who wore a helmet because he smashed his head into concrete.

A child who shrieked uncontrollably for hours. Parents wrestling a teenage son twice their size to keep him from hurting himself. A mother scanning a parking lot in a panic because her nine-year-old bolted and can’t say his own name.

I’ve asked hundreds of people my age the same question, and I get the same answer every time, usually after a long pause and a puzzled look. They don’t remember it either. (Ask a former nurse or teacher over the age of 70, and you’ll get the same response, too.) If those children existed in our world, they were so extraordinarily rare that none of us ever encountered them.

Today, they are everywhere. And the most astonishing part isn’t that our world changed. It’s that we’ve stopped acting like it did.

Think about that for a minute. If I had walked into my fourth-grade classroom in 1978 and told my teacher that one day virtually every school district in America would have multiple classrooms dedicated to children who could not speak, who required one-on-one aides, who wandered, who self-injured, who had seizures, who would almost certainly require lifelong care, she would have assumed I was describing some dystopian science fiction novel.

She would have asked what happened. She would have wanted to know what we did about it. Any reasonable adult in 1978 would have.

Yet here we are. We built an entire infrastructure around this new reality — special education departments, behavioral therapy franchises, sensory gyms, respite care agencies, Medicaid waivers, sibling support groups, adult residential services, a whole professional class of people whose careers exist because of it.

We did it fast, and we did it without ever really pausing to say out loud what the construction of that infrastructure implies. You do not build all of that for a population that has always been there. And somewhere along the way we collectively decided to stop asking the most obvious question in the world:

How the f*&^ did this happen?

Keep reading

WHAT A SHAME: City of Dallas Revokes Permits for Leftists Groups Planning to Disrupt the Republican Midterm Convention

A whole bunch of far left groups are planning to ‘protest’ (disrupt) the Republican Midterm Convention in Dallas, Texas on September 10th. Based on recent history, everyone knows that this means. The term ‘fiery but mostly peaceful’ rings a bell.

Unfortunately for these groups, the city has revoked their permits. That doesn’t mean much to the left. They’ll probably show up anyway, but without permits, we imagine that the police will have cause to remove them.

The planned protest was supposed to be just one hour long. Does anyone believe these groups would stick to that schedule? Not a chance.

Townhall reports:

Officials from the city of Dallas have canceled planned protest permits for the upcoming Republican Midterm Convention after requests from the Dallas Police Department, according to a local outlet.

The one-hour long protest planned for September 10 had its special permitting revoked. Dallas Police claim that the recommendation for revocation came because they would have preferred to work directly with protest organizers “for a quicker process.”

Event organizers claim that Dallas Police have repeatedly set meetings with organizers only to cancel moments before the meeting or to not show up altogether. Some organizers with the Dallas Against the Trump Agenda Coalition, the protest organizers, claim that the failure to communicate amounts to obstruction.

“They did try to get us in meetings with DPD, and constantly DPD didn’t show up,” Xavi Velasquez said. “DPD didn’t show up, and then whenever DPD reached out to us directly and set up a meeting, they canceled it right before the meeting. So, keeping that in mind, and with DPD running us off of City Hall property, we just have little faith in them respecting our rights.”

The keynote speakers for the convention have just been announced.

Keep reading

Polls Show Europe Wants War

The latest polling from Europe exposes the hypocrisy behind the entire war campaign. Europeans have been frightened into supporting larger military budgets, common European debt, weapons for Ukraine, and an EU defense structure, but when they are asked whether they would personally pick up a rifle, the enthusiasm suddenly disappears. They support war in theory as long as Ukrainians, professional soldiers, or somebody else’s children are forced to die for it.

The European Council on Foreign Relations surveyed 19,481 adults across 15 European countries in May 2026. The results were presented under the absurdly triumphant title “Europeans are ready to defend themselves,” yet the underlying figures tell a far more complicated story. Europeans may be prepared to borrow money and purchase weapons, but most are not prepared to bear the physical cost of the policies they endorse.

The EU’s Spring 2026 Eurobarometer found that 81% support a common European defense and security policy, while 76% believe Russia’s invasion of Ukraine threatens EU security. Another 76% said the EU should continue supporting Ukraine until a “just and lasting peace” is achieved. Those phrases are deliberately vague.

Keep reading

CRAZY TOWN: Masked Woman at ‘Socialism 2026 Conference’ in Chicago Explains Why Fitness is Fascist

Socialists are currently attending the ‘Socialism 2026 Conference’ in Chicago and there are dozens of insane videos from the event that are already going viral on social media.

In this one, a masked woman explains why socialists must reject the idea of fitness, because to do otherwise would play right into the hands of fascists. Is this some sort of bizarre reaction to RFK Jr. and MAHA? No one would be surprised.

You will notice that this woman is masked. In 2026. In fact, it looks like almost everyone at this event is wearing masks. These are the people who loved the Covid-19 lockdowns. They’re pining for the return of those glory days.

Partial transcript via Stu Smith:

“The More Dysgenic, the Better”: Beatrice Adler-Bolton Says the Left Must Give Up the “Fantasy of Being Fitter Than the Fascists”

At Socialism 2026, Adler-Bolton argues that “fitness is a measure of relative disposability under capitalism” and says the goal should not be to become “more useful to the ruling order.”

She says the left should not try to beat fascists “at their own game” by becoming “fitter, more eugenic.”

“In fact, the more dysgenic, the better, I think.”

She closes by arguing that revolution is not “a contest between optimized and properly prepared bodies” and that the very idea is itself fascist.

Keep reading

The Real Elites Vs. The Ruling Elites

Always and everywhere, political institutions are controlled by elites. It doesn’t matter if the regime type is democratic or monarchical. It doesn’t matter if there is a written constitution or not. All political institutions – and certainly every sovereign state – are run by a group of elites who control the means of coercion.The myth of “rule by the people” is precisely that: a myth.

But this leaves a big question open: who are the elites? Wilfredo Pareto, that pioneer of Italian elite theory, convincingly suggests that elites are simply those people who are most skilled in their respective fields. Being skilled does not suggest any sort of virtue or beauty, of course, and we cannot assume that any member of the elite will be more moral or refined than any, say, middle-class mechanic.

In the case of political elites, to be “elite” simply means to be the most effective at organizing and commanding political action. This can be done toward both virtuous ends or evil ends. The political elites excel at the gaining and wielding of political power. Nothing more. In hereditary monarchies, for example, the monarch is a monarch because his ancestors were more effective at using violence – and at stealing and killing – than were their competitors. Their descendants are able to remain in the elite through effective political scheming to maintain their positions. In democracies, those who gain and maintain power are effective at deceiving the voting public and at currying favor with the ruling coalitions of various interest groups. They’re not “the elite” because they are especially virtuous or well educated. They simply excel at cultivating the knowledge necessary to wield the power of the state against their enemies and against potential rivals.

Economic Elites vs. Political Elites

There is, however, often confusion as to the difference between economic elites and political elites. One could say that economic elites are those who are most skilled at the management of property. Yet, the nature of the economic elites depends largely on what type of regime exists within society. In a society that has a mostly market system, the economic elites are those who are most productive in the free marketplace. These are the people who are skilled at entrepreneurship, sales, logistics, investing, and all other aspects of a freely functioning market. In a mostly free society, the economic elites are free to spend most of their time on their activities in the marketplace, and they are thus rewarded for spending their efforts in improving their own productivity. Moreover, all of society benefits from these sorts of economic elites. This is because rewards in the marketplace stem from delivering more goods and services to more people at a price that a growing number of people can afford.

Things are different in a society where the economy is dominated by the state – and thus by the political elite. In such a society, the economic elites are those who are most skilled at using the power of the state to achieve success in the state-regulated marketplace. In this case, the economic elites are those who are able to partner with the regime to obtain policies that benefit the elites through the manipulation and regulation of the market. These policies include bailouts, state-backed monopolies, and an easy-money-fueled financial system. In this system, the economic elites are able to maintain and enhance their positions and their wealth through effective political action, and by serving the political elites instead of customers in the marketplace.

When this happens, we cannot assume that the economic elites are there because they add value to society. Rather, the economic elites in this latter system are parasitical. They rely on the exploitation of others to maintain their positions and to expand their market share. One of the most dramatic examples of this can be seen in the response to the financial crisis that began in 2008.

Had the marketplace been allowed to function, many large banks and other firms would have been bankrupted, and their property repurposed by other, more efficient owners and managers. Those new owners could have become a new economic elite. But thanks to the intervention of the incumbent political elites, failing firms were saved through the redistribution of wealth from the productive classes to hand-picked, politically connected incumbent firms and owners. Thus, firms like Citicorp and AIG were bailed out, new regulations imposed, and firms like JP Morgan greatly expanded their market share. The Federal Reserve’s mass purchasing of mortgage-backed securities rescued a large portion of the financial sector from insolvency. As a result, most of the economic “elite” we find in the financial sector owe their positions to political action rather than any actual skill in the marketplace. Sure, these people are fond of telling themselves that they are rich because “the market” values them so highly. In reality, they are successful because lobbyists have succeeded in propping up their firms and ensuring, through constant monetary inflation, growth in their portfolios.

But this is just one example. In any society where the political elites are prolific spenders, or engage in widespread regulation of the economy, the economy is continually distorted in a way as to favor the politically well connected at the expense of everyone else. For example, the economic “elites” who rely heavily on government contracts – e.g., Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, the founder of Flock Safety, et al – are not in the elite because they are especially productive in a free market. They are in the elite because they are adept at seizing the property of taxpayers through the tax-and-spend mechanism.

Note that in this interventionist system, the real economic elites – the people who would have risen to the top of an actually free economy – are crowded out and kept down by government action that favors certain firms. Who are these would-be elites? We’ll never know, and instead we are left with our counterfeit billionaire class which is “elite” only in their skill at exploiting people who do real work in the private sector.

Keep reading

Far Left Texas Democrat James Talarico to Hold Campaign Event in Los Angeles for Some Reason

If you were running for office in Texas, wouldn’t you hold all of your campaign events in Texas?

The only reason to ask this question is that James Talarico, the far-left Democrat running for Senate in Texas, is planning to hold an event in Los Angeles, California, for some reason. Is this so all of his far-left friends in Hollywood have a chance to meet him and donate cash to his campaign? Why else would he be going there?

It makes sense if you think of it that way. Hollywood leftists are probably his biggest fans.

FOX News reports:

Texas Dem candidate to hold high-dollar Hollywood fundraiser while GOP gathers in Dallas: ‘Fake cowboy’

Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico is set to travel to Los Angeles in September for a high-dollar fundraiser with Hollywood celebrities, according to a report.

Politico reported that “Lost” co-creator Damon Lindelof and his wife, Heidi, will host a fundraiser for Talarico in Brentwood on Sept. 10. Tickets for the event start at $500 and go as high as $13,500, according to the outlet. This will be Talarico’s second Hollywood fundraiser in a few months. The first was held in June and was described by Page Six Hollywood as a “glitzy Dem fundraiser” at the home of Hollywood producer Peter Chernin. Fox News Digital reached out to the Lindelofs and Chernin for comment.

Meanwhile, Talarico’s opponent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, will gather in Dallas for the Republican National Committee’s midterm convention, along with President Donald Trump and other Republicans. The same night Republicans rally in Dallas, former President Barack Obama will headline a Democratic House fundraiser in New York, according to The New York Times. The events put prominent Democrats on the coasts while Republicans gather in Texas…

Talarico is taking heat from Republicans for his out-of-state fundraising. RNC spokesperson Zach Kraft told Fox News Digital that “it is no surprise that James Talarico feels more comfortable in crazy liberal California than when his handlers force him to wear a fake cowboy hat and rent a pickup truck to pretend to be a ‘real’ Texan.”

Nothing about Talarico is genuine.

Keep reading

Ex-Muslim Criticizes Islam, and for Leftists, It’s Time for a Virtue-Signaling Party

Grab your hazmat suit: There has been a severe outbreak of “Islamophobia” in Los Angeles. But don’t worry: the intrepid Mayor Karen Bass is on the job. “Islamophobia,” she declared Friday, “has no place in Los Angeles.”

Bass was late to the party. She made this pronouncement a day after Lindsey P. Horvath, supervisor of Los Angeles County’s third district, denounced the same “vile and dangerous Islamophobia” and added: “It should alarm every one of us: an attack on one community is an attack on us all.” And Horvath was writing two days after the Nexus Project, which combats antisemitism but is apparently branching out, said about the same incident: “This is bigotry, and it should never be met with applause in any room, let alone one at a Jewish event. We call on the sponsoring organizations to condemn this without equivocation.”

Even that was slow on the uptake. It was back on Monday when the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued its marching orders, claiming that the alleged “Islamophobia” was “the same sort of rhetoric that has fueled a rise in anti-Muslim bigotry and violence, including the attack on the Islamic Center of San Diego. The sponsors of this summit should apologize, repudiate these remarks, and support justice for all people, here and abroad.”

The problem for Bass and all the others who were piling on and clutching their pearls over this supposedly “Islamophobic” event was that the speaker who had so enraged Hamas-linked CAIR, such that it had to call out the politicians that it carries around in its pocket like so many nickels and dimes, was not some redneck, knuckle-dragging bigot answering a casting call for white supremacists from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Instead, the speaker that inspired all this posturing and virtue signaling was Mosab Hassan Yousef, who is the son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a cofounder of Hamas. While CAIR and Bass and the rest cry about alleged “bigotry,” they’re apparently hoping that no one will notice that the target of their venom knows what he is talking about.

What Mosab Hassan Yousef said that is driving everyone crazy was this: “And there is no room for Islam dominance, especially here in the United States. Let me be very clear about this. I personally, I as an American, I as a taxpayer, I don’t want Muslims in America. Get the f**k out of the United States. Go back to the s******e where you came from and reform your own countries. This country is perfect and it’s much better without your Islamic belief system. Do I need to be more clear than this?”

Mosab Hassan Yousef grew up as a Muslim, among some of the most committed and knowledgeable Muslims in the world. He has, however, rejected it and embraced Christianity, and now he minces no words in speaking about this violent and supremacist ideology. Many will find his words about wanting Muslims out of America to be too strong, but no one can honestly say they’re based on bigotry or ignorance, or even on dislike of Muslims as human beings. He is speaking this way because he has firsthand experience regarding the brutality, inhumanity, and oppression of Islamic law.

Keep reading

Trump Admin Drafts Policy to Let Married Stay-at-Home Parents Collect Child-Care Aid Instead of Paying Strangers to Raise Their Kids

The Trump administration is drafting a Health and Human Services policy that would, for the first time, let a married parent who stays home with the children collect federal child-care money that Washington has spent thirty years routing almost exclusively to day-care centers.

The New York Times, citing people familiar with the talks and a draft document, reports the change is a priority for Vice President JD Vance and would tap the Child Care and Development Fund, the 1990s program built to help low-income parents pay for care so they could work or go to school.

Typical aid runs about $9,000 per child a year.

Under the draft, a married couple in certain income brackets could use that assistance for “parent-based childcare,” meaning one spouse stays home while the other works at least 35 hours a week.

“The change would create the only federal subsidy to pay parents to stay home and raise their children, one of the most significant efforts to date by the Trump administration to harness federal funds to promote a traditional view of families,” the NYT reports.

No new act of Congress is required for this change.

The Times reported, as if it were a negative, “The policy change would effectively create a government incentive for parents to stay home with their children, an idea embraced as part of a broader conservative effort to advance policies that promote more mothers staying at home.”

A federal program that will pay a stranger to raise a child and will not pay a mother or father to do it is not neutral.

Keep reading