“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
–H.L. Mencken.
Yesterday was International Sandwich Day. Newspapers advertised where to buy the best sandwiches in towns across the nation. I did not need to read a newspaper to know where to buy the best sandwiches. English is by far the very best sandwich maker I have ever encountered.
I do not know what happened last night. I did not watch election returns. Instead I read a book. But I am assuming that the voters screwed themselves and the nation, because that is what they do, on a regular basis. Tomorrow I shall have more to convey, after I have evaluated just what occurred.
But I have not forgotten my dear readers. Below are commentaries touching largely on issues of culture and freedom. Enjoy!
____________________________________________________________________
George Bush Was Wrong On 9/11 And Still Is
Islam a religion of peace? Nothing in its works would suggest that.
BY: Alicia Colon, The American Thinker (October 29, 2026).
On the 25th anniversary of the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor, I watched the somber recollections without seeing the same emotion I have felt since that day — absolute fury.
I’m not sure what made President George Bush say that Islam is a religion of peace on 9/11, but he certainly did not know what he was talking about. Islam has never been a religion of peace. It was founded in violence and continues to this day to wage war against perceived “infidels.”
Instead of recognizing the true meaning behind the attack, many community leaders seemed to bend over backward to placate the Muslim community. After 9/11, more than 300 mosques were added in various states, and school boards were adding foot-washing stations and other Muslim accommodations.
Here in New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who was elected to that position shortly after the attack, had no problem allowing a Muslim community center to be located near Ground Zero. While I thought the proposed Arab school was a good idea, did it have to be headed by a radical Islamist connected to the Muslim Brotherhood?
Many of us who live in Staten Island and in all the boroughs of New York, as well as New Jersey, lost friends and neighbors. So did people around Washington, D.C., and in Boston, Los Angeles, and other cities connected with those flights. Thousands of children lost a parent. In Staten Island, Donald Foreman was the coach of my boys’ basketball team and was very active in school activities. I would always see him in the first pew at Mass, but I had no idea he was an NYPD police officer who was stationed at the Lincoln Tunnel on 9/11. He didn’t have to rush to the Towers, but he did, and he lost his life.
To this day, I cringe seeing any airplane headed towards Manhattan because I will never forget.
Apparently, many say those words, but they do forget, and after 25 years, the young cannot imagine the horror of that day unless we continue to broadcast the shocking videos they need to see.
According to a French think tank for European integration and the free economy, between 1979 and April 2024, there were 66,872 Islamist casualties worldwide. “These attacks caused the deaths of at least 249,941 people,” they found.
Waged by a religion of peace? I think not.
Recently, a Muslim copilot on a flight headed to Israel axed the pilot with the intention to crash the flight but was stopped by passengers. This was unsurprising to many.
News24 was interviewing a veteran pilot, Captain Byron Bailey, about it.
Bailey responded:
“Yeah, I’m not really surprised with Flydubai, operating Dubai to Tel Aviv, and with Muslim pilots, or not all Muslim, but — the captain was Indian.
But how deep do you want to go into it? Because I hear them saying, “Oh, we wonder what the motive is.”
Well, excuse me, in Dub…uh, in the Middle East, the motive is the fact that Islam calls for the death of Jews. All Jews. It’s part of the core belief of Islam. This whole commission, this joke they had in Australia recently about antisemitism, just ignores the reality of what the core belief of Islam is — that all Jews must die until the world becomes pure, free of Jews.
I remember when President Obama made the comment that during the Crusades, many atrocities were committed in the name of Christianity. He was obviously not interested in the truth of history because the Crusades were a good thing. Remember these names from the Bible: Corinth, Ephesus, Nicaea, Carthage, Constantinople. These were Christian cities that were conquered and slaughtered by the religion of ‘peace.’ The Crusades were an effort to restore these sites.
St. Thomas Aquinas, in his tome, The Summa Contra Gentiles, wrote that there was no evidence of supernatural incident in Islam that would indicate that God was present. He also wrote: Mohammed, who enticed peoples with the promise of carnal pleasures to the desire of which the concupiscence of the flesh instigates.
He also noted that those who believed in him (Mohammed) from the outset were not wise men practiced in things divine and human, but beast-like men who dwelt in the wild, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, and it was by a multitude of such men and the force of arms that he compelled others to submit to his law.
He wrote that from medieval Paris, and it was not very flattering, but considering what is happening in France and other European cities today, Islamic terror attacks seem to be the Jihadist move to dominate Western culture, and the jihadists will succeed as long as the Western world regards Islam as a religion of peace.
____________________________________________________________________
Why patriotism is superior to the left’s approach to ‘equality’
The contrast between patriotism’s emphasis on self-sacrifice and the left’s pursuit of equitable outcomes overlooks the personal choices that shape Americans’ lives.
BY: Susan Quinn, The American Thinker (October 30, 2026).
Although I’m often skeptical of Gallup polls, their latest was “spot on” in measuring the values that Americans treasure: Republicans favor patriotism, and Democrats favor equality. But these two values are not equivalent!
Several factors help explain this poll’s revealing results. The right’s commitment to patriotism and the left’s dedication to equality (a form of equality our Founders would not have recognized) illustrate a major chasm between the two sides. The right holds admirable, powerful values; the left holds values that deserve closer examination. An analysis explains why these two approaches are opposites.
The commitment to patriotism is a high-level value and can be described in this way:
Along with love, patriotism is the feeling of pride, devotion, and attachment to a homeland, as well as a feeling of attachment to other patriotic citizens.
This description implies that patriotism requires a kind of selflessness, putting country before individual desires (when necessary). It describes a sense of community and connection, of concern not just for oneself and one’s family, but for one’s neighbors, co-workers, and friends.
We see this kind of dedication in our country’s founders, in our military, and in those who support them. We demonstrate our patriotism not only through our beliefs but also through our actions. When we stand for the National Anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance, we publicly avow our love of country.
When we register to vote and cast our ballots or run for office (although these pursuits are not always selfless), we are showing our patriotism. In this country, patriotism also includes an appreciation of the Judeo-Christian ethos. Finally, taking the time to study our founding documents, including the Constitution, is the act of a patriot.
Patriotism, then, rests on the understanding that personal sacrifice can serve a greater good. We recognize this when soldiers risk their lives for their country or when citizens put their communities’ needs ahead of their own. Yet we also see this kind of selflessness much closer to home, especially when parents sacrifice career opportunities, income, and personal ambitions for their children.
The difference is not between patriotism and equality, for equality before the law and equality of opportunity are fundamental American values. The problem arises when equality becomes equity, with its emphasis on achieving equal outcomes. Rather than recognizing that people have different priorities and willingly make different sacrifices, this approach treats unequal results as evidence that something is wrong.
This is especially apparent in the left’s approach to women’s employment and earnings. Its complaints include women’s limited rights and pay; the claim that we still live in a patriarchy in which women lack status and are controlled by men; the assertion that women are discouraged from running for public office; the claim that women still encounter a “glass ceiling” when seeking promotions within companies; and, finally, the usual cry that women earn less than men.
The problem with these demands for equity is that they focus on old, tired criticisms of women’s status. The left refuses to acknowledge our country’s progress. It ignores the fact that many women, for example, choose to stay home and care for their families or reject jobs that would compromise their time with their children:
‘I had a high-risk pregnancy, and it was pretty overwhelming and made me rethink whether I wanted to go through that again. So, he might be my only one, and I just really wanted to enjoy my time with him and not to rush back to work and like split the time between caring for him and a job and all those responsibilities,’ Osepowicz said.
Osepowicz is one of the 24% of mothers in the U.S. who are stay-at-home moms, which is up 9% from 2022, according to Motherly’s State of Motherhood 2023 Survey Report. The research found 52% of working moms say child care costs have made them think about leaving the workforce; 64% need flexible schedules to be able to work; and 67% are paying at least $1,000 each month on child care.
The decision to become a stay-at-home mom has a direct impact on women’s promotions, positions, salaries, and workplace hours—all of which may be reduced because of their own priorities, not necessarily because of patriarchal discrimination. When we account for these factors, we’ve learned that women’s incomes are comparable to men’s.
The key point is the underlying difference between the left’s and right’s values. The right tends to emphasize selflessness and outward-focused responsibility, whereas the left’s emphasis on equitable outcomes can overlook the personal choices and sacrifices that shape people’s lives.
The data the left touts are often questionable or outdated, and its adherents have little interest in exploring information that contradicts their claims or demonstrates the improvements that have been made. They embrace their roles as victims rather than pursuing ways to help everyone, and this country, grow and succeed.
Thus, the Gallup poll revealed more than the pollster probably anticipated.
Not all values are equal, and patriots can proudly proclaim their pride and success in helping fulfill the American dream.
____________________________________________________________________
Incremental Socialism
Once socialism is embedded in our laws and institutions, the march to communism begins.
BY: Luis Gonzalez, The American Thinker (October 29, 2026).
Imagine you own an apartment building and need to sell it. The mortgage comes due, insurance premiums keep climbing, repairs cannot wait, and you have found a willing buyer. You have negotiated a price and are ready to close. Then New York City tells you to wait.
Your financial obligations do not wait. Your buyer may not wait. But under New York City’s Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, known as COPA, the government can insert a lengthy process between you and the sale of your own property. What should be a private transaction becomes subject to a timetable designed to give selected organizations an opportunity to purchase the building first.
This is the kind of incremental change worth examining. Socialism does not always announce its arrival with bullets and revolution. Sometimes it arrives as a statute that sounds reasonable, addresses a genuine concern, and changes the rules one transaction at a time.
On October 22, the New York City Council passed COPA by a vote of 38 to 9, with two members abstaining. Mayor Zohran Mamdani has championed the measure. The revised bill is narrower than earlier proposals and is expected to cover roughly 2,100 multifamily buildings meeting specified conditions involving serious housing violations, city enforcement programs, or affordability restrictions. Qualifying owner-occupied buildings with five or fewer units are exempt. The law is scheduled to take effect one year after enactment.
Under COPA, owners of covered properties are mandated by to inform the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development when they intend to sell. Qualified nonprofit organizations have 20 days to express interest and another 70 days to submit an initial offer. Additional procedures can give a qualified organization the right to match an outside buyer’s offer. A legal analysis by Cullen and Dykman estimates that the process can delay a transaction by approximately 130 days when the applicable stages are triggered. The final timetable depends on the transaction and the rights exercised. Owners may apply for an exemption based on undue financial hardship, but that exception does not eliminate the underlying process.
For an owner facing mounting expenses, those delays are not abstractions. Mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, utilities, and repairs continue regardless of what the city requires. A willing buyer may move on. A deal that could have helped an owner meet financial obligations may disappear while the government process runs its course. Ann Korchak, president of Small Property Owners of New York, has warned that COPA could contribute to the extinction of small property owners. Her concern deserves attention. A policy intended to preserve affordable housing can impose new costs and risks on the people responsible for maintaining the buildings in the first place.
COPA’s history also illustrates how incremental change works. An earlier version passed the City Council in December 2025 but was vetoed by Mayor Eric Adams. The Council failed to override the veto. Advocates revised the proposal, reduced the number of potentially covered buildings from roughly 10,000 to approximately 2,100, and returned with a narrower bill that passed in October 2026. The campaign was led by the NYC Community Land Initiative, alongside a coalition of more than 200 community, tenant, and affordable housing groups. The coalition included the Democratic Socialists of America’s Queens Housing Working Group.
The political connection matters. Mamdani championed COPA, and his administration includes Democratic Socialists of America members in influential positions, including Chief of Staff Elle Bisgaard-Church and Cea Weaver, whom he appointed to lead the Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants. COPA will be administered by the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development under this administration. The connection is clear. A mayor who openly identifies with democratic socialism is advancing a housing policy that gives government-certified organizations a privileged opportunity to acquire private property, consistent with the broader direction of the socialist housing agenda.
The issue is not whether every nonprofit involved in COPA shares the same ideology. The issue is whether the policy advances a broader movement whose stated goals deserve to be taken seriously. The DSA’s own Housing Justice Commission advocates moving housing away from treatment as a market commodity and toward social housing, community control, and the redistribution of land. Its stated program discusses expropriation from capitalists and presents incremental reforms as steps toward a broader transformation.
COPA does not abolish private property. It establishes a statutory preference for selected organizations to acquire certain privately owned buildings. That is a meaningful connection between a specific law and an ideological project that seeks to transform how property is owned and controlled.
The relevant comparison is not to a revolutionary seizure of property, but to the gradual expansion of administrative control over private transactions. COPA does not confiscate buildings, and New York City is not a revolutionary state. But the law does establish a new principle: the government may give selected organizations priority in deciding who can purchase certain private property and when a sale may proceed. Each restriction can be defended as a limited response to a particular problem. Once accepted, it becomes the foundation on which the next restriction can be built.
That is how socialist and communists ideas can become embedded in ordinary administration. A law creates a new preference. Agencies write the procedures.
Organizations learn to operate within the new system. Future officials inherit the authority and can argue that expanding it is simply the logical next step.
COPA’s immediate scope is limited, and future expansion is not inevitable. But the precedent is real. Government can influence who gets to buy, when a sale can proceed, and which organizations receive privileged access to private property. The definitions of eligibility, the administration of deadlines, and the use of hardship exemptions will help determine how much power the law places in the hands of city officials and favored organizations.
The question is not whether every nonprofit will abuse the system. It is whether government should create special rights for selected organizations in transactions involving property that belongs to someone else. A worthy objective does not settle that question, and a limited law today does not guarantee a limited law tomorrow.
And once socialism is embedded in our laws and institutions, the march to communism begins, and reversing it may require the very bullets and revolution its advocates never needed to achieve it.
____________________________________________________________________
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me…?
It will be our own fault if we allow our constitutional republic to be transformed by the Left into the kind of government our ancestors broke away from.
BY: Mike Phelps, The American Thinker (October 29, 2026).
Arbitrary and authoritarian control are the conditions most people have lived under for most of history. If one is ignorant about American history and history more broadly, one might be tempted to believe Americans’ incredible fortune is the norm. But no one should take life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for granted, as all three of them are quite precarious.
The United States of America and the other Western or Western-style democracies are very much the exception. This fact seems to be virtually unknown among America’s youth who are restless to cast their constitutional republic aside in favor of totalitarian communism.
That authoritarian rule and collectivism are inevitably intertwined is not even contemplated. Apparently, they believe free stuff is simply provided with no strings attached. Because cultural literacy is no longer a thing, they have likely never heard the expression, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
Liberty was wrested from the British Empire by Americans only after much spilling of blood, so it is frustrating, to say the least, that the Democrat Party and the Democrat Socialists of America are determined to wipe away our heritage. Many democrat politicians are promising to replace our system of government with their own arbitrary and despotic control. What else can we expect in the aftermath of their desire to abandon the Electoral College, dissolve the Senate, pack the Supreme Court, and transform the District of Columbia into a state. Whether any of this is constitutional is beside the point as the Democrats yearn for a post-constitutional order.
“Rights,” is a very popular word on the Left, but they often have a strange definition of the word. Women have a right to kill their baby up until birth; everyone has a right to free medical care; men have a right to participate in women’s sports. With rights come responsibilities — like the responsibility to not be an ignorant fool who has no conception of common sense or moral clarity. Most Americans used to rely on the ethical and moral teachings provided by the Judeo-Christian tradition, as George Washington understood:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports… And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.”
A majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians or Jews, with estimates at around 65 percent and 2.4 percent respectively. The Muslim population is cited as around 1.3 percent, but this figure seems a little low, particularly after the Biden administration let in as many as ten million illegals from all over the world. We cannot forget about the 200,000 Afghans let in without proper vetting in the wake of President Biden’s chaotic pullout from Afghanistan.
The Judeo-Christian tradition is still a real thing in America, but it has been steadily eroded by secular forces within the entertainment industry, education system, and the Democrat Party over the last 50 years. Aggressive atheism from the collection of socialists and communists that increasingly hold sway over the Democrat Party should be taken seriously. Americans also have to confront the seemingly paradoxical pact the Left has forged with militant Islamists.
Generations Z and A seem to have little understanding of the historical and cultural underpinnings of their own country, as the education system has been effectively replaced by leftist indoctrination. Not that long ago, the Judeo-Christian tradition was recognized as a fundamental pillar of American society. To the Founders, the role of religion in America was self-evident: “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary… [But lacking these] you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” How many of your children’s teachers have studied James Madison’s words, let alone taught them?
The concept of liberty was taken very seriously by eighteenth-century Americans, and many sacrificed, killed, and died to secure it. Many Americans don’t seem to recognize how precious it is, how rare a constitutional republic is, and why it should be preserved. Mass government surveillance is a hot-button topic for many people right now, with one focus being the license plate reader cameras many jurisdictions have set up in recent years.
While state and local governments are not using them for mass surveillance in the way some people might have you believe, the technology could be used that way. The Communist Chinese government deploys similar technology as one of several tools to monitor, control, and punish its population.
Do Americans want to be like China? What do Americans know about China’s Communist regime? A murderous authoritarian state that practices mass surveillance and a social credit system to keep its people in line — but you’ll have cheaper medical care. Look to Canada’s healthcare system for a cautionary tale; it offers affordable care up to and including free government-assisted suicide, because Canada has learned that government/single-payer medical care is too expensive to sustain.
The fighting that took place in and around Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, was the point of no return — America’s war for independence from the British Empire had begun. The battle broke out a month after Patrick Henry’s March 23, “…give me liberty or give me death!” speech. His words were not merely overheated rhetoric; his and many others’ necks were on the line. The founding generation fought and died so we could live free from the tyranny of authoritarian government. It will be Americans’ own fault if we allow our constitutional republic to be transformed by the Left into the kind of government our ancestors broke away from. As a famous politician once said, elections have consequences. There is an election on November 3; vote accordingly.
GFK
