I have often noted that the climate scam and the associated forced energy transition would of necessity go away at some point because the proposals being advocated to “save the planet” could never possibly work. But the open question has always been, when that happens, what will it look like? Would all the big enviro groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club all go on national TV one night and admit that the whole thing was a fake scare from the beginning? In the real world, that’s not how these things happen. People who have staked out absurd positions somehow need to save face. So there would have to be some sort of gradual process of backing down.

And thus we come to the key role of the New York Times for the Left, which is to mold and convey the official talking points to the team’s candidates and influencers. How about sharing some instruction on how to quietly back away from the Green New Deal?

Today on page A-12 of the print edition there is a piece with the headline “Democrats Once Vowed to Stop Oil and Gas. Now They’re Not So Sure.” The subheadline is “As the midterm elections approach, many leading Democrats are rethinking their approach to climate change.” The online version indicates that the piece first appeared there five days ago, June 11. They held it for the print edition until today, and then buried it deeply on page A-12. The casual reader may not get that far, but the person who will see it is the party apparatchik who needs direction from central headquarters. Excerpt:

With voters worried about spiking gas prices and inflation, some [Democratic Party] leaders argue that they should stop trying to throttle oil and gas, which heat the planet when burned. It’s a rejection of the approach taken during the Biden administration, which treated climate change as an existential threat and tried to stop new drilling and pipelines. . . . The result could be a less ambitious climate agenda if the party returns to power in Washington. . . . Now many Democrats argue that the path back to power means abandoning some of their most aggressive stances on climate change.

The piece is filled with useful pointers in how to tone down the catastrophism. Most of that seems to involve an end to vilifying oil and gas, while continuing to promote wind and solar as the “cheapest” ways to produce electricity. (They still haven’t figured out that by the time you include costs of integrating wind and solar into the grid, those things are a far more expensive way to produce electricity than fossil fuels.). Here are some of the pointers:

– “Rather than pushing green solutions only, many Democrats say they have a better way to bridge the gap: Be the party of yes to all forms of energy. After all, they argue, wind and solar power are often the cheapest forms of electricity and the fastest to deploy. On an even playing field, they say, renewables would beat fossil fuels.”

– “We shouldn’t be against the domestic oil and gas industry, but we have to be for the energy transition,” said Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic strategist. “Democrats should be running toward that instead of away from it.”

– Rahm Emanuel, the former congressman, chief of staff to President Barack Obama and mayor of Chicago who is exploring a 2028 White House run, said Democrats need to focus on household budgets, specifically electric and gas bills.“I’m not against talking about climate policy, but you’ve got to talk about it as energy and energy prices,” Mr. Emanuel said, “and you talk about it as it relates to protecting ratepayers.”

And if you stop vilifying the oil and gas industries, you can even start taking their money!:

[Recently] in California, . . . Tom Steyer, a champion of fighting global warming, was edged out of this month’s gubernatorial primary by Xavier Becerra. Mr. Becerra, a moderate Democrat, questioned the state’s most stringent climate goals, like ending sales of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, and received donations from oil and gas companies.

If the Democratic candidates are getting this message, it could be that the climate scare suddenly mostly disappears from the upcoming midterm elections. Wouldn’t that be an incredible change!

On the other hand, so far this is just about messaging. Even if the messaging changes, that does not mean that the goals of the Democrats on taking power will have changed. Certainly, over in the Endangerment Finding litigation, dozens of enviro groups and all the blue states continue to argue that atmospheric CO2 (the product of use of fossil fuels) is a “danger” to human health and welfare. Where Democrats rule, the destructive policies will continue until either there is some sort of catastrophic grid failure or the costs become too wildly excessive to credibly blame on some bogeyman.

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

I’m pretty much a hawk on Iran and certainly don’t trust them to hold their part of any deal. Putting that aside for a moment…

Note, numbered paragraphs below are not meant to correspond to MOU numbering.

1 – Why do we even need a deal? If, for whatever reason, the US doesn’t want to fight anymore, we can stop and leave without ceremony. Let them wonder if we’ll hit them again. They know what prompted our attack. The US doesn’t owe them a written apology. Iran misbehaved, we b*tch slapped them, so now -Bye! What’s wrong with that? Worried about the strait being open? How about letting other countries deal with that? I think of Trump on NATO when he said if they don’t pay in we won’t defend them. Why not take that approach if we’re tired of running this operation? If folks want the strait open, go open it! Oh, yes, I forgot – they let us use airports. Gee thanks. You saved us some mileage. We took Iran down a big notch. If there’s no will on the US part to finish it, let everyone else mop up. No occupation or nation building required.

2-Why does the US need to be involved in any way with Iran getting $300 billion? Iran’s concern would be that we would just sanction any charity gifts or loans sent their way. So? They have plenty of back channels they’ve been using to get around sanctions for decades. If they want to beg, let them beg through those channels.

3-The deal will be given 60 days to be finalized, but the US must begin removing forces in 30. Say what? If they said 30 days after a final deal, that may make some sense. This is patenty absurd. Would Trump do a real estate deal this way? Sure, we’ll finalize the mortgage qualification stuff in 60 days, but the seller has to move out and hand us the keys within 30. Yeah, right. I know I said first that I would put aside trust issues, however, this provision extends the Iranians a level of trust beyond ordinary business transactions.

4-As stated on Whitehouse.gov on 1 March, the first reason to do this operation was to deal with the nuclear program. The nuclear program should be settled now not later. What the MOU does settle is that Iran can maintain the status quo of its nuclear program – that means spinning up to 60%. So this MOU off the bat is a failure in the nuclear regard.

5-It completely fails to mention ballistic missiles, another big reason for attacking given in the 1 March statement. Coupled with Iran spinning away, this at best a can kicking provision. Note, the short range stuff that Iran has been using for decades are not ballistic missiles.

6-As an Iranian terror proxy, Lebanon is definitely a front on this war, but this deal is between the US and Iran and it’s Israel and Lebanon dealing with Hezbollah now. There are no US forces involved in that. If you want to include Lebanon territory in this, then you need to include the primary parties in that part of the transaction – Israel and Lebanon. This deal is written as if Hezbollah is the sovereign government of Lebanon. It is not. Again, would Trump run a real estate deal this way? This is like a bank and insurance company agreeing that two people will exchange property even though those individuals have no idea they are about to be moving. This also risks the entire deal failing on the whims of a Hezbollah commander launching rockets at Israel. You think Israel is not going to respond? And since Iran is now basically coming out and saying “Hezbollah is Iran”, the Israelis would be fully justified in including attacks on Iran as part of any response to Hezbollah.

Flat out retarded.

The Iran war is already reshaping alliances and narratives, while fueling a deeper argument over U.S. power, limits, and long-term strategy.

By Victor Davis Hanson

June 18, 2026

The shooting portion of the Iran “War” lasted about 40 days—far shorter than Barack Obama’s 2011 congressionally unauthorized seven-month bombing campaign against Libya.

Bill Clinton’s unauthorized 78 days of bombing Serbia in 1999 hit bridges, schools, hospitals, monuments, and power plants—far more indiscriminate targeting than anything in the Iran War so far.

No one yet knows the ultimate verdict on the war, given all the economic, military, political, and strategic variables still in play. A memorandum of understanding released this week might end the war, or result in further American strikes—depending on the degree of Iranian concessions and compliance.

But in this confusing, ongoing drama, many fabrications and distortions still circulate.

The Strait of Hormuz was open before the war and is now closed, so the war was a failure.

The Strait was open because an appeased Iran had no reason to close it—given that no nation on earth dared to end its nuclear dreams of dominating the Middle East, funding anti-Western terrorists, and threatening Europe and the U.S.

So the rub was always disarming Iran and then dealing with its inevitable desperate strategy of closing the Strait.

Trump’s agreement will simply be a copy of Obama’s earlier Iran deal.

Obama dealt from a position of abject weakness. Iran assumed correctly that Obama would offer endless concessions and cash, while never considering force.

Does Obama really believe that Iran in 2015 was stronger than it is now after 40 days of intense American, Israeli, and Gulf state bombing?

Trump is dealing with a bankrupt Iran, a neutered military, a restive Iranian street, a wounded regime, and the specter that the U.S. can do whatever it wishes militarily to a shattered Iran for the foreseeable future.

The U.S. is bereft of allies and strategically isolated in the war.

During the war, the unthinkable occurred when Israel de facto became an ally of the Arab Gulf monarchies. Other than a few rogue nations and Arab terrorist clients—the weakened Hezbollah, the crushed Hamas, and the wary Houthis—Iran has zero friends.

Neither China nor Russia offered Iran much in the way of aid, other than satellite imagery and some smuggled supplies. Both lost their once-prominent positions among clients in the Middle East who deeply resented their siding with Persian Shiite theocrats over Arab oil suppliers and arms buyers.

Israel has more combat aircraft than the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The Gulf monarchies do so as well. Both Israel and the Gulf states have been flying bombing missions against Iran. There is a far greater chance of Arab-Israeli rapprochement after the war than before it.

The war has torn apart the Republican Party, ensured a Democratic landslide in the midterms, and endangered a Republican victory in 2028.

Antisemitism, neo-isolationism, and conspiracy theories were already the mark of the apostate right. But almost all of the new MAGA critics have lost the trust of Republicans and increasingly are either mirror-imaging the Left in Never Trump fashion or drifting off into Nick Fuentes nihilism.

Trump may lose House and/or Senate seats in the midterms—as happened in 38 of the last 41 midterms since the Civil War.

Yet there are still well over four months before the elections. If Trump keeps the Strait open—ither by force, negotiations, or through a mixture of both—oil prices will likely drop before November, given increased production worldwide.

If Iran is rendered militarily incapable of posing a major threat to the region and the world and is forced to accept American terms, then Republicans may enter November quite competitively.

The Iran War was a betrayal of MAGA’s commitment to no “forever wars.”

The second Iran intervention, following up on the initial June 2025 bombing, was certainly an optional and preemptive action. In that sense, it was akin to Trump’s first-term Soleimani and Baghdadi hits, the destruction of ISIS, and the response to the Wagner Group attack.

Yet there still are no ground troops in Iran. The loss of 13 soldiers, while tragic, is less than the two-week fatal-accident rate of the military.

There is a good chance that less than six weeks of active bombing achieved far more than 20 years in Afghanistan and a decade in Iraq—at a fraction of the human and fiscal costs.

The key to negotiating an end to the war is to always remember that Iran’s regime—its theocrats, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, military leaders, and elected officials—has no history of telling the truth or abiding by any agreement it signs.

So the only means of enforcing concessions is to use disproportionate force each time Iran inevitably violates the terms of 

I always liked Jay Leno; his jokes would make you groan but begrudgingly chuckle during his 21-year reign as Tonight Show host, which started in 1992 (with a brief break as Conan O’Brien took over for a bit, but that’s another story). Compared to the toxic bile spewed by today’s wastes of airtime like Jimmy Kimmel and the thankfully cancelled Stephen Colbert, however, he was a genius.

That being said, I could have done without this latest bit from “Jay Leno’s Garage,” which I will describe shortly.

But if you’re ever feeling down about the current news cycle or cynical about the latest dramas in Washington, D.C., I have a cure: remember where we could have been. Joe Biden — or God forbid, Kamala Harris — could be sitting in the Oval Office right now, watching with a wry grin as they further engineer the decline of America.

As if to bring the point home, here’s Ole Joe appearing with Leno, reminiscing about his attempts to kneecap America’s energy supply:

Biden:

…the other thing I was able to do, I made sure there could be no oil drilling off the East Coast, the West Coast, and 150 miles —

The next part is completely unintelligible; Lord only knows what he actually intended to say. As you can see in the RNC Research tweet above, they were able to discern that he meant “hescodoinalotprotection.”

And what does this next utterance mean? It implies anger, but other than that, who knows?

No more windmills. Yeah, because they killed birds. Yeah, give me freaking break.

Okayyyyyy. And yes, windmills do kill hundreds of thousands of birds a year — birds like eagles. Go ahead and laugh about it, guys; the brutal death of many of our national birds is so humorous.

One can’t help but wonder what Leno really thought about this idiocy, seeing as he is a car collector and, although he’s been supportive of electric vehicles, the vast majority of his autos are gas-powered.

Here’s the problem, Einstein (I mean, Joe) — you may have attempted to kneecap our energy independence, but you didn’t invent a replacement technology. Sure, “green energy” advances have progressed, but the tech is nowhere near as efficient, cost-effective, and reliable as good old fossil fuels, as our Ward Clark has documented relentlessly.

It’s like cutting off the hose, but forgetting to provide an alternative source of water. Without water, everything dies. Without energy, economies wither (and/or end up having to depend on foreign powers — often our enemies).

Laugh all you want, Joe, but it’s decisions like these that thankfully have you trading jokes on a California highway with Jay Leno and not making decisions in the Oval Office.

Bob Hoge, Red State

Social promotion and efforts to ban standardized tests are ways of shielding adults from accountability.

By Jason L. Riley

June 16, 2026 5:19 pm ET

If you stare really hard—and maybe squint—at last week’s federal report on long-term K-12 education trends in the U.S., there is some good news. Math and reading scores among 9-year-olds have improved a little since 2022, and most of the gains were driven by struggling students. It’s a signal that those in the youngest cohort of test takers are recovering from the disastrous pandemic school closures.

The good news pretty much ends there. Among 13-year-olds in nearly every demographic group, test scores in math and reading were flat. And most youngsters continue to lack proficiency in both subjects. Standardized tests have no shortage of detractors, but these evaluations have become more important in an era of grade inflation and meaningless graduation rates.

Last week several readers pointed me to a recent investigative report in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the pressure on teachers to pass students regardless of classroom performance or even attendance. The paper said it was “an open secret that in many schools, it is nearly impossible to fail a student.” The result is a school system full of children unable to perform academically at even the most basic level.

“On paper, Philadelphia students can fail courses, or be retained in a grade, so long as they are offered appropriate interventions and supports,” according to the Inquirer. “But many teachers said that they were discouraged or forbidden by their principals from flunking students, or that they have given out failing grades that were overridden. Others said failing students was permitted if justified, but the administrative burden to rationalize failure, even for students who did not show up to school, is onerous or impossible.”

The downstream damage of promoting students to the next grade based on their age rather than their mastery of the material might be incalculable, and it raises frightening questions about what our workforce will look like in the decades to come. The literacy and numeracy skills of Americans have declined in recent years. An Education Department study in 2024 found that 1 in 4 young adults are functionally illiterate, even though more than half received high-school diplomas.

Job prospects and earnings for people who lack rudimentary language and math skills can be severely limited. There are exceptions, but in general people with higher levels of education have higher incomes and a lower risk of unemployment. We talk about the earnings gap between high-school graduates and college graduates, yet many of today’s high-school grads function at or below a middle-school level of education. Eliminating standardized tests wouldn’t change that reality, and it would help policymakers and the education establishment avoid accountability.

The problems with our K-12 school system have been in the making for generations, and what’s frustrating is the feebleness of efforts to address them. Political leaders insist on the need for more education spending, but it isn’t expensive to teach children reading and arithmetic, something that was done competently for many decades on budgets much smaller than what educators have at their disposal today.

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has proposed smaller class sizes to address the learning gap. This is a hobbyhorse of the teachers unions that control public education (and the mayor) because it requires employing more dues-paying instructors and school staff. Nevertheless, empirical studies have shown that smaller class sizes have minimal effect on student learning. Countries that consistently outperform the U.S. on international tests, including Japan and South Korea, have larger classes on average. So do many high-performing charter schools. The data show that a good teacher is far more important than a smaller class, yet our public school system values seniority over competence.

Liberals are likewise focused on classroom diversity and on hiring teachers who share the racial or ethnic background of minority students. But you will be hard-pressed to find much racial diversity in the classrooms of Tokyo and Seoul, and the best-performing students in the U.S. tend to be of South Asian and East Asian heritage. They are among the groups least likely to be taught by someone who looks like them.

So much of what ails higher education in the U.S. is rooted in a broken K-12 system that fails to prepare college-bound students adequately. Grade inflation in high school necessitates grade inflation at universities. Lower high-school graduation standards lead naturally to lower college graduation standards to guard against high failure and dropout rates. Colleges have amassed redundant remedial programs to teach freshmen subjects they should have learned long before arriving on campus.

Historically, educational attainment has been an effective way of addressing social inequality, and standardized testing is one of the few ways to measure which policies are working and which ones aren’t. The educators and policy wonks who want to do away with these assessments aren’t looking out for children. They are looking out for themselves.

By Jason L. Riley

What do you get when you combine woke, DEI, special subsidies, and technocrats?

A bureaucratic standard for “gayness.” An actual, legal process to determine the sexual preferences of contractors. 

Lots of paperwork involved in order to be certified as gay in California.

pic.twitter.com/TwaAKAlhZJ— City Journal (@CityJournal) June 16, 2026

It all stems from an already absurd program to force utilities to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars to be awarded to contractors that the state certifies as “gay.”

No, this is not a parody. This is real life. 

Now, let’s leave aside the fact that gay men earn the highest income of any group, and that gay households correspondingly are much wealthier and have more buying power than any other demographic group. There is even a Wikipedia on the gay wage gap. 

Still, gays are a “protected class,” and are lumped in with other categories of minorities, and we are talking about California after all. Even if you thought set-asides were good policy—they are not, and they are also routinely abused by hiring a front man or woman to get access to a contract—it’s kinda bizarre that gays would be included, given their advantage in income. 

But there it is. And since they do this, they need a way to certify exactly what people do with their genitals. 

Under a series of Democratic governors, the program has expanded to include gay-owned businesses. In September 2014, then-Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation requiring CPUC to recognize “LGBT-owned businesses” as eligible for supplier-diversity benefits. Five years later, Governor Gavin Newsom expanded the program further, “encouraging” other companies involved in the energy sector to award contracts to gay-owned firms.

In the years that followed, CPUC faced activist pressure as it implemented the gay expansion. BuildOUT California, a since-rebranded LGBT building-industry organization, sent a letter to the commission arguing that “homophobia” existed within “the ranks of the utility companies.” The state’s legislative LGBTQ caucus suggested in a 2021 letter that even considering lower gay-procurement targets was “an insult to the LGBTQ+ community.”

By 2022, CPUC had fully implemented the expansion. In practice, this meant establishing a “goal” for utility companies with annual revenues exceeding $25 million to buy things from state-certified LGBT businesses: 0.5 percent of procurement in 2022; 1 percent in 2023; and 1.5 percent in 2024 and beyond. If “large” CPUC-regulated utilities met these “goals” in 2024, they would have sent roughly $633 million to LGBT-owned firms.

This scheme raises an obvious question: How does a business qualify as officially gay? Paperwork. Supplier Clearinghouse, a group that certifies firms for the CPUC program, features a list of qualifications linked on its website. Applicants can secure certification by providing a letter from an “LGBT organization” attesting to their sexual preferences; proof that a newspaper identified them as “LGBT”; or three letters from “personal contacts” written “on company letterhead” attesting to their homosexual orientation. Corporate officials who “falsely represent” their business as gay face up to a year in county jail.

Supplier Clearinghouse also accepts gay-certification letters from the National LGBTQ+ & Allied Chamber of Commerce. The chamber has its own list of accepted documents, including human resources complaints or police records claiming LGBT discrimination. As NGLCC states on its website, “Certification is a journey, not a destination.”

“Gay certification letters.” There is now such a thing, believe it or not. 

No word on whether you can use the George Costanza method of proving one’s sexual identity. Not that there is anything wrong with that. 

Of course, George wanted to prove he was not gay, but it could work the other way around, you know. And Scott Weiner would probably volunteer as a “gay certifier.”

I suggest that we expand the requirements for other groups getting set-asides. Perhaps do genetic testing for black and indigenous people, awarding people with greater or lesser benefits depending on quanta of different racial characteristics as revealed in their genes. Hispanics could get their benefits based on how much European heritage they have. 

Otherwise you get the Elizabeth Warren or Rachel Dolezal problem, right? Genetic tests for all! 

I’m not sure how you tell whether a person is a woman anymore, since there is no agreed upon definition. I wonder if there is soon to be a certification process for womanhood, or does checking a box for that characteristic suffice? If you fake being gay, why can’t you fake being a woman?

In any case, I am glad to know that at least one state is working hard to ensure that power is only delivered by the “right” demographic mix of contractors. The fact that many wildfires are started by failing PG&E power lines is a small price to pay for that comfort.

La Reconquista remains a fringe movement, but its activists dream of reclaiming the American Southwest through demographics, politics, and cultural power.

A comprehensive analysis.

La Reconquista is a fringe irredentist ideology promoted by some Chicano and Mexican American activists. It calls for the cultural, demographic, or political “reclamation” of the U.S. Southwest, which Mexico lost after the Mexican-American War.

Proponents view these lands as “stolen” and often invoke the mythical Aztec homeland of Aztlán, advocating non-violent means such as mass immigration, high birth rates, and cultural dominance to achieve de facto control or even separatism.

Emerging from the 1960s Chicano movement, it remains marginal but very active in certain left-wing circles in the U.S.

Let’s explore this political movement in detail.

Origins and History

The word Reconquista historically refers to the medieval Christian reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from Muslim Moors between the eighth and 15th centuries. In contemporary American political discourse, the term has been repurposed to describe a Mexican and Chicano nationalist strategy to demographically, culturally, and politically reclaim the American Southwest—specifically, the territories ceded to the United States following the Mexican-American War of 1846–48. Those territories encompass present-day California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Texas.

The ideological foundation rests on the claim that these lands were “stolen” from Mexico and that the descendants of those who held them have a birthright claim to their eventual return—whether through formal secession, political control, or cultural dominance. This idea exists on a broad spectrum, from academic Chicano Studies discourse to explicit radical separatist ideology to what investigative journalists and national security researchers argue is a deliberate strategy by the Mexican government.

The Ideological Core

The organized ideological expression of Reconquista in the United States traces primarily to MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán), a Chicano student organization founded in 1969 out of the broader Chicano civil rights movement.

MEChA’s national constitution is explicit about its intent: “The Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlán must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlán.”

By supporting continued high levels of Mexican immigration to the United States, MEChA hopes to flood the Southwestern U.S. with enough immigrants—legal and illegal—to establish a numerical majority and achieve, by sheer weight of numbers, the repartition of that region. This reconquista, or reconquest, would represent the fulfillment of El Plan de Aztlán’s credo: “Where we are a majority we will control; where we are a minority we will represent a pressure group; nationally, we represent one party: La Familia de Raza.”

MEChA’s motto is “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada” (For our race, everything. For those outside our race, nothing)—and its manifesto reads in part: “With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation.”

MEChA has an extensive presence as a student organization, with some 300 chapters in high schools and colleges throughout the United States. Underneath this racial agenda is a radical leftist political agenda that shares with socialists and communists the goal of destroying the United States. MEChA presents a version of Marxism with a racist bent.

The territory MEChA and allied groups claim as “Aztlán“—the mythical ancestral homeland of the Aztec people—is described variously. Students in some school programs are taught that Aztlán consisted of the states of parts of Oklahoma, and the entirety of Texas, New Mexico, California, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada.

Some MEChA voices have gone further than secession. The next phase of the La Raza movement would involve the ethnic cleansing, or expulsion, of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent from Aztlán. As Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge’s MEChA chapter once put it, after the establishment of Aztlán, non-Chicanos “would have to be expelled” because “you have to keep power.”

It bears emphasis that these are the most extreme voices within MEChA—not the position of mainstream Latino advocacy organizations—but they are documented, not fabricated.

Domestic Activist Organization

National Council of La Raza / UnidosUS

The National Council of La Raza was for decades the largest Latino civil rights organization in the United States. It rebranded as “UnidosUS” in 2017, a move widely interpreted as an effort to shed the “La Raza” label’s association with ethnic nationalist rhetoric. Behind the National Council de La Raza’s respectable veneer, critics point to the organization’s support of secondary “La Raza” organizations such as MEChA, which has spread across the entire U.S., gaining footholds in colleges and universities and promoting racial supremacist La Raza ideologies and the reconquista agenda of the mythical Aztlán.

In practice, NCLR/UnidosUS has functioned primarily as a mainstream civil rights and policy advocacy organization focused on education, housing, health care, and immigration reform. Its connection to the more radical elements of the movement is through funding and institutional support for affiliated organizations, not through explicit endorsement of separatist goals.

CHIRLA (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles)

CHIRLA is among the most operationally significant immigrant rights organizations in the country, and its ties to the Mexican consular network are directly documented. The administrative officer of the Consulado de Mexico in Los Angeles and his staff participate in “strategy sessions” with the 125-member Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA). The consulate is listed as a “sponsor” of CHIRLA along with MALDEF and the ACLU.

In recent years, CHIRLA has moved into direct action against federal immigration enforcement. CHIRLA partnered with SEIU and other groups in January 2025 to form the Los Angeles Rapid Response Network, a coalition that deploys activists to track ICE operations on foot. That network was implicated in the Los Angeles riots of June 2025. CHIRLA created an anti-ICE network that led to a union leader’s arrest and encouraged supporters to arrive at a federal building for a rally that turned violent. The chaos spread across central California for days and caused damages totaling somewhere between $32 million and $1 billion, according to local and federal agencies. House and Senate lawmakers responded by announcing investigations into CHIRLA, though these have produced no findings or legislative reforms.

MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund)

MALDEF operates as the primary legal arm of the Latino advocacy movement, deploying litigation as its primary tool. Its recent activities include challenging ICE detentions of U.S. citizens, opposing restrictive immigration enforcement, seeking to intervene in a Missouri-led challenge to the Census on behalf of Latino organizations and voters, and filing civil rights lawsuits on behalf of detained immigrants. Its methods are institutionally conventional—federal courts, amicus briefs, civil rights claims—but its consistent strategic alignment is with the maximally permissive end of immigration policy.

LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens)

NGOs like the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) serve as advocate groups within the broader movement, supporting political activity and the election of individuals sympathetic to the cause. LULAC is among the oldest Latino civil rights organizations in the U.S., founded in 1929, and while mainstream in orientation, it consistently advocates for immigration liberalization and has been critical of enforcement-focused policy.

Concluding Thoughts

This ends Part I of this two-part series. Part II will cover the following topics: the movement and Mexican consulates in the U.S.; La Reconquista goals and tactics employed; the movement’s ties to the U.S. political left and Democrat Party; foreign support and NGO networks; and a discussion of possible future scenarios and their potential for success.

American Greatness

British tyranny is globalism, and globalism must be destroyed.

J.B. Shurk | June 17, 2026

British tyranny is so repulsive that the British people owe it to themselves to overthrow their government masters.  It has been two-hundred-fifty years since America’s Declaration of Independence recognized the Crown system as a threat to Americans’ lives and liberties.  English-speaking peoples still suffering under the British yoke should follow suit. 

Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a near-total ban on social media for children under sixteen years old.  Ten of the most popular social media platforms are now age-restricted, with the toxic-leftist Bluesky platform a notable exception.  The government claims to be “protecting children” from online harm.  That’s a lie.  If the British government cared about protecting British children, government ministers and police forces would not have covered up Islamic rape gangs targeting children for three-plus decades.  The British government would not censor online reporting of foreigners murdering young Brits.  The British government has systematically chosen to sacrifice the United Kingdom’s children.  

This online “safety” measure must be understood, then, as a ruse meant to expand the government’s control over online information.  Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have similar surveillance systems in place — all ostensibly erected to “protect the children” but designed, in reality, to control the speech of citizens.  In these countries, the only way to communicate with other citizens on social media platforms is to prove your age by proving your identity.  Mandatory digital identification systems are disguised as child welfare checks.  The Brits and their Commonwealth vassals have built a surveillance system to monitor citizens’ thoughts, censor unapproved speech, and promote official propaganda.   

Tyrant Starmer is pushing this online surveillance infrastructure while citizens in the U.K. are protesting and rioting against the British government’s murderous mass immigration policies — which have invited foreign rapists and killers to overrun the kingdom and slaughter citizens.  

Just as the unelected European Commission ruling the continent continues to cover up immigrant crimes and censor citizens’ online discussion of these ongoing threats, the British government is more concerned about punishing native Brits for noticing that they are under attack than repelling violent invaders from Britain’s shores.  (If Keir Starmer had been in Winston Churchill’s shoes during the Nazi Blitz, the British government would have surely helped the Germans cover up the bombings while blaming all the destruction on British citizens!)  

Starmer’s government spies run a propaganda outfit that controls all public “narratives” regarding immigrant crime against native Brits.  The group of spies write and release misleading statements, presented as coming from the families of victims, that are designed to downplay rapes, murders, and other violent incidents.  While these spies use propaganda and censorship to cover up serious crimes committed by immigrants, they simultaneously engage in information warfare against British citizens by branding legitimate public concerns over safety as “disinformation,” “far-right racism,” “violence,” and “hate speech.”  This spy group in charge of monitoring and shaping the public’s thoughts has flagged “reading Shakespeare, Chaucer or Milton, or books documenting grooming gang scandals as potential indicators of far-Right susceptibility.”  The British spies — a veritable Gestapo fabricating public “truth” — plant media stories, steer online discussions, and deploy operatives to disrupt or direct public protests. 

The British government claims the power to block “false information” that is “legal but harmful.”  On its website, the British government defines “extreme right-wing terrorist ideology” to include the belief that “‘Western culture’ is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups.”  British Technology Secretary Liz Kendall claims that it is “illegal” to promote “disorder” on social media.  Meanwhile, Starmer’s government tyrants are instructing journalists how to report immigrant attacks on British citizens.  These are the actions of dictators who do not care about “protecting the children.”

Surveying the daily violent crime by immigrants and the British government’s ongoing cover-ups, former Prime Minister Liz Truss says there is a government campaign to “undermine the family” and the “nation state.”  She says that forced diversity has corrupted the institutions and that government ministers suppress information and attack citizens while protecting barbarians.  She concludes that mass migration and government control over information are being used as weapons to destroy Western civilization.

For years, we Americans have watched the evils of globalism expand both at home and abroad in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of continental Europe.  Branded by its international supporters as some kind of final, utopian stage of human governance, globalism is just another Frankensteinian beast — created from all the worst parts of Marxist-communism, Leninism, Maoism, fascism, Nazism, authoritarianism, oligarchy, corporatism, elitism, and central bank hegemony.  Globalism is totalitarianism.  Its god is government, although it has created special liturgical rituals regarding an imaginary “climate change” apocalypse meant to scare the world’s peasants into accepting the supremacy of government authority and bureaucrats’ (globalism’s “priests”) centralized power over all economic transactions.

Globalist governments seek total control over the people, and every policy that globalist governments shove down our throats is meant to advance this goal of total control.  COVID was not a health emergency.  It was a government excuse to roll out digital identifications, mandatory pharmaceutical injections, “vaccine” passports capable of monitoring real-time citizen movements, and online censorship.  It was a government program meant to condition citizens to accept that government bureaucrats should be empowered with limitless authorities — including the discretion to regulate church services, close and bankrupt businesses, lockdown citizens in their homes, separate family members from dying loved ones, and quarantine citizens for non-compliance.  The “global warming/cooling/climate change/extreme weather” hobgoblin is a government-designed scare tactic identical to the COVID “emergency.”  The only difference is that the “global warming” fearmongers have been telling us that we have twelve years left to live for the last century, while the COVID fearmongers told us that we had twelve days to live unless we complied.  Manufacturing compliance was and remains globalist governments’ only strategic objective.

Do you believe that marriage is an institution recognizing the sacred union between one man and one woman?  Do you believe that men and women are biologically different?  Do you believe that mass immigration is a threat to national security?  Do you believe “multiculturalism” and forced “diversity” destroy excellence, discount merit, and weaken the naturally salubrious bonds of common cultural heritage?  Do you believe that every human has a God-given right to self-defense?  Do you believe that Christians should remain faithful to their beliefs in both their public and private lives?  If so, globalist governments see you as an “extremist,” “right-winger,” “religious fanatic,” “terrorist,” and “enemy of the State.”  Your thoughts will be condemned.  Your speech will be censored.  You will be fined and prosecuted.  You will go to prison for your beliefs.  

Globalism’s ruling elites lust for wealth, power, and total control over the public.  Their lust will never be sated.  They wish for a small collection of government and economic masters to subjugate as much of the planet’s population as possible as serfs.  Globalism is a conquering empire.  Its oligarchy of central bank popes, chosen political governors, corporate monarchs, and techno-fascist-brownshirt-bureaucrats are modern-day slavers and colonizers.  Instead of putting us in chains and whipping us when we “misbehave,” they put us in a lifetime of debt and prosecute us for expressing opinions contrary to official government orthodoxy.  

AThird-world barbarism is exploding across Europe.  Official Eurostat numbers show that sexual violence offenses in the European Union have doubled over the last decade.  Rapes skyrocketed 150%.  Knife crimes and murders are off the charts.  Foreign nationals who have immigrated into Europe are responsible for roughly fifty percent of violent crime.  

The best way for Americans to fight encroaching globalism over here is to support British patriots in their fight against globalism over there.  As Benjamin Franklin persuasively argued, “We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.”

American Thinker

These “stars”  live in rarefied neighborhoods and have full-time security when they venture out.  And yet because they subscribe to the New York Times, they think they are our benefactors. 

Patricia McCarthy | June 16, 2026

The once-revered and talented actor Robert DeNiro lost his humanity years ago now, during President Trump’s first term.  

He transformed himself from a beloved actor, a great actor, into a hateful, whiny, disturbed man who, by now, no one but the most Trump-deranged wants to hear speak, act or blather on and on about how he can’t love this country as long as Trump is our president.  

The same is true of Jane Fonda, Julia Roberts, Bette Midler, etc., all the moonbat celebrities who think we care what they think about anything.  

They spend their lives entertaining us by acting in fictional roles as fictional people.  They are good at their jobs, most of them.  But that talent they have, whether God-given or learned does not qualify them to tell us what to think or for whom to vote. They live in bubbles of wealth.  They often endure the fawning admiration of crowds of people they do not know but who derive joy by sharing their lives vicariously.

Jane Fonda has a long and storied record of hating America; her activities would have shocked and embarrassed her father who was indeed a great actor. He was a Democrat who enlisted to fight in WWII and served in the Navy for three years.  If he were alive today, he would surely be a Republican.  

The Democrat party of today loathes the military and considers the people who volunteer to be a part of it to be tools of the right.  

Nothing could be further from the truth.  These young people who join any branch of the military today are heroes, far braver than any of the leftist cowards who love to malign them.  

Our Democrat party has devolved into something Henry Fonda would not recognize today but for their communist tendencies. His daughter Jane was and remains a good actress but, like DeNiro, she is intellectually devoid of any gratitude for her success, fame and wealth.  People like DeNiro, Jane Fonda, George Clooney (he’s especially dumb), and Bette Midler have not an iota of an idea of how regular Americans live, work, raise their families, to say the least.  These “stars”  live in rarefied neighborhoods, have full-time security at their homes and when they venture out.  And yet because they subscribe to The Nation and the New York Times, they think they are our benefactors.  They’re not.  They are fools.

Any sentient American paying attention knows that our Democrat party has morphed into a Marxist/communist organization intent upon destroying America as founded and, like all wanna-be oligarchs, control  the rest of us since they, their children and grandchildren  are financially secure for generations. Trump is the only president in decades, perhaps since Lincoln, who actually cared about the American people, especially working people.  The left, on the other hand, cares so little for our native citizens, they import millions of migrants to take their jobs because they can pay them less.  As in the U.K., migrants are elevated to some kind of preferential status and American citizens are expendable, deemed racist if they complain. 

DeNiro, Fonda, et. al. are nothing but rich, pretend know-nothings who want to be relevant in  their dotage.  They are not relevant.  Not many people showed up at their “event” in opposition to the MMA show at the White House which was a resounding, patriotic success.  

Oh, how the lefties hated that!  It was everything they hate about the Americans they despise, mock and condemn.  Wrestling! OMG!  How banal, how repugnant.  How beneath “us,” the blessed elites of this blighted nation say.  Such is the story of the once-great, now pathetic DeNiro and his angry pals. 

No American citizen can deny the problems we live with and endure – massive homelessness, for example.  In California, billions of dollars have been allocated to alleviate that disaster and the money has disappeared into parts unknown, perhaps Newsom’s offshore accounts?  

Our once-great system of education has been hijacked by the left for at least three generations now, so there are three generations who know nothing but anti-Americanism. The country has been wracked by anti-family nonsense, a climate change hoax of the first order, the horrors of gender ideology that has destroyed thousands of lives, a fake pandemic with its toxic vaccines,  a deep state that is determined to take over the country via censorious and deceptive means no matter who is elected president.  

Our cabal of deluded actors who think they are relevant are not.  They are just sad and pathetic.  Perhaps they should all stay home in their gated mansions and be thankful for their lot in life and not tell the rest of us what a terrible country this is.  Despite our many and serious problems, the U.S, is still the greatest nation on the planet.  Just ask the visiting World Cup players and fans.

American Thinker

Back in November, I wrote “Is Texas About to Fall to Islam?,” raising concerns about Sharia-influenced projects, parallel societies, and the gradual erosion of Texas culture. Things looked worrying then. But by mid-2026, the situation has changed. Texas isn’t falling; it’s fighting back. With strong Republican leadership, active grassroots groups, and clear signals from primary voters, the state has moved from defense to offense. What began as anxiety has led to real policy wins, election results, and organized resistance. The Lone Star State is showing the rest of the country how to respond to theocratic overreach. Governor Greg Abbott acted quickly. Last September, he signed House Bill 4211, which targets what it calls “Sharia compounds”—residential setups built around religious law. The bill affected proposals like the East Plano Islamic Center’s large EPIC City plan north of Dallas, where critics were concerned about exclusionary housing rules based on faith and separate community norms that might conflict with Texas and U.S. law. The legislation requires clear disclosures about how these developments are managed, ensures disputes are handled in state courts, and prevents large-scale religious restrictions on sales. Abbott described it as a balance: protecting genuine religious freedom without allowing Sharia to be imposed on anyone.

In addition, Abbott’s team labeled CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as foreign terrorist organizations at the state level. This decision limits land deals and gives Attorney General Ken Paxton more tools for oversight. Paxton’s office has responded by investigating possible informal Sharia enforcement and providing guidance to sheriffs and prosecutors. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick also introduced interim charges focused on keeping Sharia out of Texas.

Voters made their position clear. In the March 2026 Republican primary, Proposition 10, which calls for Texas to ban Sharia law, passed with almost 95% support. While it’s non-binding, this landslide result sends a strong message for the 2027 session: constitutional rules come first, with no exceptions for incompatible ideologies.

The campaigns took up this issue in earnest. Anti-Islamisation became a major theme in the primaries. For example, Bo French, the former Tarrant County GOP chair, is now heading to the Railroad Commission after his May runoff win. At CPAC Texas, he spoke on the “Don’t Sharia My Texas” panel and was direct, arguing that the problem goes beyond Sharia and includes Islam as a governmental system that does not fit the Constitution. French’s straightforward comments about the “Islamic invasion” and his plans to use his office to resist it clearly resonated with voters, even if it upset some in the establishment.

Other Texas candidates also spoke out. Aaron Reitz, running for Attorney General, focused on blocking the “invasion” of ideas he believes do not belong in Texas. State Senator Mayes Middleton and experienced politicians like Ken Paxton included warnings about no-go zones and parallel societies in their messages. These themes connected directly to border security and preserving Texas identity, energizing their supporters.

There is also the Sharia Free Texas Caucus, launched in early March by State Representatives Brent Money of Greenville and Brian Harrison of Midlothian. Modeled after a federal group that includes Texas congressmen like Keith Self and Chip Roy, it grew quickly from about 16 members to 38 Republican state representatives. This is a significant bloc in the House. Members include Daniel Alders, Janis Holt, Andy Hopper, Carrie Isaac, Mitch Little, Shelley Luther, Katrina Pierson, and Steve Toth. Their focus is clear: to educate people on why Sharia conflicts with the Constitution, to push for bans in housing and schools, and to strengthen Texas’s Judeo-Christian roots, while welcoming immigrants who want to become Texans.

This aligns with groups like True Texas Project and their “Don’t Sharia My Texas” campaign, as well as efforts to review school standards and emphasize American values. Court challenges against questionable projects also help maintain pressure.

Of course, there are challenges such as ongoing lawsuits, demographic changes, and critics who are quick to call out “Islamophobia.” But the direction is clear: from stopping EPIC City to the Proposition 10 landslide, Texas is choosing sovereignty, women’s safety, and basic liberty over quiet accommodation. My years tracking grooming gangs and parallel societies in the UK make this issue feel personal. Texas is showing that early, firm action can be effective. With the November midterms and the 2027 session approaching, staying vigilant will determine how far this momentum continues.

Texas is no longer on the defensive. It is starting to win, and it is a model worth watching.