Who'll end Christian slaughter, grad schools will survive loan caps and other commentary
'On Friday June 13, over 500 Christians' were murdered by Islamic terrorists in Nigeria, reports The Free Press' Madeleine Kearns. 'The jihadists broke into homes and shelters, murdering people with machetes,' then 'doused their victims' bodies and homes in petrol and set them ablaze.' And, 'though exceptional in scale and barbarity,' it's just 'part of a pattern of persecution that Christians in Nigeria have come to expect.' Consider: 'Since 2009, Islamists' across Nigeria 'have destroyed over 18,000 churches,' 'murdered over 50,000 Christians' and displaced 'a further 5 million Christians.' Yet Western governments and media 'have turned away from the issue.' Will anyone move to stop the carnage?
Libertarian: Grad Schools Will Survive Loan Caps
Advertisement
A provision in the Republican Big Beautiful Bill 'may make considerable inroads to correcting a decades-long student loan policy that has driven expensive programs and large debt burdens for students,' cheers Reason's Emma Camp. The House bill 'eliminates the Graduate PLUS loan program, which allows graduate students to borrow an unlimited sum of money from the government,' instead capping grad-student borrowing at $100,000, 'with a $150,000 limit for professional programs, and a lifetime cap of $200,000 for all students.' These caps could 'force colleges to lower their prices once their students no longer have access to an infinite pile of government money.' Indeed, If we want more affordable medical schools, 'the first step should involve actually incentivizing medical schools to stop overcharging students.'
Conservative: Dems' NYC-led Coastal Elitism
'One interesting aspect of the rise of' socialist Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani 'is what it says about New York City's dominance of national Democratic politics at this moment,' muses the Washington Examiner's Byron York. 'The New York contingent essentially is the leadership of the Democratic Party today,' since congressional leaders Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer as well as stars Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are all current or former New Yorkers. 'After the 2024 election, Democratic pollster Mark Penn wrote that Trump was elected by 'Americans who feel abandoned by the coastal elites and a Democratic Party that moved too far from mainstream America.'' 'There are probably a lot of things Democrats might do to broaden their appeal beyond the coastal areas, but' elevating Mamdani 'is definitely not one of them.'
Advertisement
Antisemitism beat: 'Kosherizing' Jew-Haters
Just before New York's mayoral primary, late-night host Stephen Colbert's guests were Zohran Mamdani and City comptroller Brad Lander, notes Commentary's Seth Mandel. 'All three were there' to 'help elect Zohran Mamdani mayor.' Mamdani — 'the poster child for progressive anti-Zionism's conquest of the mainstream Democratic Party' — had defended the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' which calls for violence against Jews, and 'Colbert can be effective at shielding left-wing anti-Semites from criticism.' Then again, the TV host doesn't 'hold a candle in that department to Brad Lander': Indeed, the comptroller's 'alliance with Mamdani' is the 'culmination of years of Lander's efforts to kosherize anti-Semitism.' He's part of the story of 'the collapse of New York's Jewish-political establishment.' Sen. Chuck Schumer, who kissed 'Mamdani's ring,' is 'the capstone of this project.'
From the right: Lefties' Chronic Mental Misery
Advertisement
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) 'said last week that Donald Trump supporters are mentally ill,' but 'it's her side that is not well,' snarks the Issues & Insights editorial board. 'Nine in 10 conservatives self-report their mental health to be excellent (51%)' versus only 20% of liberals. Meanwhile, 'only 19% of conservatives say their mental health is poor, while 45% of liberals say they have poor mental health.' 'This is not a new development related to Trump returning to the White House. A decade ago, University of Toronto researchers similarly 'found that conservatives are more emotionally stable than liberals.' 'Democrats, progressives, socialists, anti-capitalists, and the rest who reside under the leftist umbrella are unhappy, and they want everyone else to be just as miserable as they are.'
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Recall election date set for Jackson County Executive Frank White
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Jackson County judge has set an election date in the recall of County Executive Frank White Jr. According to court documents, Jackson County will hold a special election on Tuesday, Sept. 30, where White's position will be placed on a ballot and voted on by residents throughout the county. See the latest headlines in Kansas City and across Kansas, Missouri The decision comes just days after the judge heard testimony in court in favor of scheduling a . state that the judge asked for the weekend to review two lawsuits, one of which demanded that the election be held as early as possible, preferably by the end of August, and another that demanded the election wait until Nov. 4, during the general election. Now, the judge has landed on the end of September as the election date and handed over the remaining responsibilities to the Jackson County Election Board and the Kansas City Election Board, which will take all the necessary steps to ensure a fair election. In early July, Jackson County legislators unanimously decided to have . A special election was scheduled after legislators received more than 42,900 signatures for the recall. According to county officials, the recall largely comes from residents who have suffered from price hikes in property tax assessments throughout Jackson County. In some areas, taxes tripled, forcing residents out of their homes. However, in a , he claimed that the primary reason for the backlash is that he was on the 'Vote No' side of the April 2024 election, where the Kansas City Chiefs and the Royals looked to continue receiving sales tax money from shoppers in the county to support their projects. Before the judge's ruling, White had attempted to veto the ordinance that allowed voters to decide whether to recall him from office. He claimed it was unethical and discredited the democratic voting process. Download WDAF+ for Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV This was quickly overruled by Democratic Legislative Chairman DaRon McGee, who had a veto-proof majority on the issue. Now, voters have a scheduled date to determine whether the county executive will keep his position. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judges question whether Trump tariffs are authorized by emergency powers
WASHINGTON - U.S. appeals court judges sharply questioned on July 31 whether President Donald Trump's tariffs were justified by the president's emergency powers, after a lower court said he exceeded his authority with sweeping levies on imported goods. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small U.S. businesses and 12 Democratic-led U.S. states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. More: Trump's final stumbling blocks for countries hoping to avoid tariff hikes: Live updates Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government's justification for the tariffs amounted to "a breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in years. The arguments - one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all U.S. trading partners - mark the first test before a U.S. appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent U.S. trade imbalances and declining U.S. manufacturing power. More: Trade whiplash: Appeals Court allows Trump to keep tariffs while appeal plays out He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing U.S. borders. The countries have denied that claim. "Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again," Trump wrote in a social media post on July 31. "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today." During the July 31 arguments, Shumate cited a 1975 appeals court decision that authorized President Richard Nixon's across-the board surcharge of 10% on imported merchandise to slow inflation. But that decision added that the president did not have authority to impose "whatever tariff rates he deems desirable." Shumate also said that courts cannot review a president's actions under IEEPA or impose additional limits that are not included in the law. Several judges said that the argument would essentially allow one law, IEEPA, to overwrite all other U.S. laws related to tariffs and imports. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trade negotiations Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for U.S. consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted U.S. companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said that the tariffs were a "regressive tax" that is making household items more expensive. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: US court to review Trump's power to impose tariffs
Fox News
40 minutes ago
- Fox News
Hochul vows to 'fight fire with fire' on redistricting while hosting Texas Democrats who fled state
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul vowed to "fight fire with fire" amid Republican efforts to enact redistricting in Texas on Monday, condemning the move even while promising to pursue it herself. Hochul hosted Texas Democrats who fled their state in an effort to block a redistricting vote on Monday. The New York Democrat argued that President Donald Trump and Republicans are engaged in a "legal insurrection" to subvert the upcoming 2026 elections, leaving Democrats with "no choice" but to embrace the same tactics. "What Texas and Republican states are doing at the direction of Donald Trump, I say, is nothing short of a legal insurrection against our Capitol," Hochul said. "Legal meaning they're using the legal process. It does not mean it's legal, and it must be stopped." "If Republicans are willing to rewrite these rules to give themselves an advantage, then they're leaving us no choice. We must do the same," she continued. "All is fair in love and war. That's why I'm exploring, with our leaders, every option to redraw our state congressional lines as soon as possible." Hochul went on to say that New York's state legislative leaders have told her they are on board with any redistricting plan. New York and Illinois are both playing host to Texas Democrats who absconded from the state legislature in an attempt to prevent Republicans from having a quorum necessary to pass their redistricting plan. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to arrest and expel the lawmakers if they do not return by Monday afternoon. Dozens of Texas' Democratic state representatives arrived in Chicago and New York Sunday night to stall the vote. Shortly after Abbott released his statement, the Texas House Democratic Caucus issued a simple response, writing: "Come and take it." The statement also described Republicans' proposed districts, which would potentially secure five new GOP U.S. House seats in next year's midterm elections, as a "racist mid-decade redistricting scheme." Abbott criticized the Democrats' dramatic departure, saying that "real Texans don't run from a fight." Removal from office is not the only threat facing the lawmakers on the run, as Abbott warned that "soliciting funds to evade the fines they will incur under House rules" is potentially a felony. "Any Democrat who 'solicits, accepts or agrees to accept' such funds to assist in the violation of legislative duties or for purposes of skipping a vote may have violated bribery laws," he wrote, citing the Texas Penal Code. He added that anyone who "offers, confers or agrees to confer" money to the fleeing lawmakers could also face charges.
