Germany Admits Migrant Crisis After Silencing Right-Wing Warnings

November 6, 2025

Germany Flag — Ian Chaff/Getty via Canva Pro

German leaders have publicly acknowledged that the country is facing a full-scale migrant crisis—an admission that comes after years of dismissing or censoring warnings from the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party. Officials now admit to surging unauthorized border entries, strained public services, and growing unrest in cities bearing the brunt of uncontrolled migration.

According to reports, the same concerns raised by the AfD—overloaded housing, overstretched welfare programs, and increased pressure on law enforcement—are now being validated by government ministers. These concerns were previously labeled xenophobic or alarmist. AfD officials had long warned that the country’s asylum and migration policies were unsustainable and would lead to a breakdown in public safety and cohesion.

While German leaders are not publicly crediting the AfD, their recent shift in tone reflects political pressure. The AfD has surged in regional polling, winning key votes in multiple states and gaining ground among working-class voters who feel abandoned by mainstream parties. The government is now moving to tighten border controls, expedite deportations of illegal entrants, and reconsider elements of its asylum system.

Germany’s delayed response mirrors broader European tensions. Countries like Italy and Hungary have clashed with the European Union over migration, while Germany’s previous open-border stance is now under internal review. Officials face mounting pressure not only from political opposition but also from municipal leaders overwhelmed by the scale of the crisis.

The shift underscores growing public demand for national governments to assert sovereignty, enforce immigration laws, and prioritize domestic stability over globalist immigration frameworks.

Jewish Groups Issue Post-Election Warning to Mamdani as He Prepares to Lead NYC

November 6, 2025

Several major Jewish organizations in New York City have issued a public warning to mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, expressing deep concerns over his past statements and positions regarding Israel and the Jewish community. The UJA-Federation of New York, Jewish Community Relations Council of New York (JCRC-NY), Anti-Defamation League (ADL) New York/New Jersey, American Jewish Committee (AJC) New York, and the New York Board of Rabbis jointly released the statement shortly after Mamdani’s election victory.

In their statement, the groups said, “We cannot ignore that the Mayor-elect holds core beliefs fundamentally at odds with our community’s deepest convictions and most cherished values.” They pledged to hold Mamdani “fully accountable” to ensure that Jewish life and support for Israel are protected and allowed to flourish in New York City.

Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist and longtime supporter of Palestinian causes, has previously backed the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. His refusal to denounce slogans like “globalize the intifada” has drawn condemnation from critics who argue the rhetoric incites violence and undermines Jewish safety. These positions have alarmed Jewish leaders, particularly given the city’s sizable Jewish population.

Though Mamdani has insisted he opposes antisemitism and that it “pains” him to be accused of such bias, his record has not reassured many in the Jewish community. As he prepares to take office, Jewish organizations are signaling they will closely monitor his administration’s actions and policies.

New York City is home to nearly one million Jews, the largest Jewish population outside of Israel. With tensions already high over rising antisemitism and Israel-related controversies, Mamdani’s term as mayor is expected to face early tests over how he engages with one of the city’s most prominent religious and cultural communities.

Private Sector Adds Just 42,000 Jobs in October — Alarm Bells for Labor Market

November 6, 2025

Jobless-MCCAIGGetty-via-Canva-Pro — "Jobless" (MCCAIG/Getty via Canva Pro)

The U.S. private sector added approximately 42,000 jobs in October — a positive rebound from September’s 29,000‑job loss, yet still modest by historic standards. Economists had forecast around 28,000 to 30,000 jobs, so the figure exceeded expectations — but the broader story is one of continuing weakness.

The report from ADP Research Institute shows that gains were concentrated in a small number of sectors. Trade, transportation and utilities led with +47,000 jobs; education and health services added about +25,000; financial activities contributed +11,000; natural resources and mining +7,000; construction +5,000. On the flip side, information lost 17,000 jobs, professional and business services shed 15,000, and other services declined by 14,000.

Additional breakdowns show that large businesses (500 + employees) added 74,000 jobs in October, while mid‑sized firms (50‑499) lost 22,000 jobs and smaller firms (<50 employees) lost 10,000. Wage growth also remains flat: pay growth has “been largely flat for more than a year,” according to ADP’s chief economist, signaling that while jobs are being added, they are not translating into stronger compensation.

From a policymaker point of view this raises red flags. The recent momentum in hiring appears fragile and narrowly based. With the federal government shutdown disrupting official data releases from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), reports like ADP’s carry more weight — but ADP data has known volatility and doesn’t always align with the more comprehensive BLS non‑farm payrolls.

For households and workers, modest job growth may translate to slower income gains, cautious hiring practices by firms, and possible pressure on consumer spending heading into the holidays. For conservative observers oriented toward free‑market job creation and wage growth, the data underscores that recovery in the labor market may require strong policies that reduce regulatory burdens, incentivize business expansion, and strengthen small‑business hiring — since small firms are currently losing jobs even as large firms add them.

Palantir CEO: Fentanyl Response Would Be Different If Yale Grads Died

November 6, 2025

Fentanyl written on a bottle with label (designer491GettyCanva Pro) — Fentanyl written on a bottle with label (designer491/Getty/Canva Pro)

Palantir Technologies CEO Alex Karp issued a blunt critique of national drug policy, claiming the government would act more aggressively against the fentanyl crisis if the victims were elite college graduates. Speaking during Palantir’s recent earnings call, Karp questioned why the annual deaths of 60,000 Americans from fentanyl have not triggered a broader mobilization. He remarked, “If 60,000 Yale grads were dying every year from fentanyl, you would see a very different response from the federal government.”

Karp’s comments drew attention as the Trump administration has launched military strikes on suspected drug trafficking vessels and expanded interdiction efforts at sea and along the southern border. These actions follow rising pressure to address the fentanyl supply chain, which originates largely from China and moves through Mexico into the United States. The administration has prioritized direct action against transnational criminal networks and cartels using U.S. military and intelligence assets.

While praising the recent shift toward more aggressive enforcement, Karp highlighted what he sees as a longstanding indifference by political elites to the overdose deaths affecting working-class communities. He tied the crisis to decades of open-border policies and lax enforcement that allowed fentanyl trafficking to escalate with minimal pushback. According to Karp, those most impacted by the epidemic—non-elite, middle- and lower-income Americans—lack the political influence to drive policy at the national level.

He further challenged legal interpretations that suggest limits on federal authority to act, calling it “insane” to believe the Constitution restricts decisive government action to stop 60,000 deaths annually. Karp’s remarks reflect growing demands across political lines for a sustained and uncompromising response to the drug crisis, particularly one that does not rely on passive bureaucratic management but treats the issue as a national emergency.

Teacher Calls Out ‘Ideologically Violent’ Label After Defending Standardized Testing

November 6, 2025

A high school math teacher, writing under the pen name “Yellow Heights,” says he was labeled “ideologically violent” while defending standardized testing during his education training. The incident took place at a top U.S. teacher‑preparation institution around 2020, against the backdrop of rising criticism of conventional assessment methods.

Yellow Heights describes himself as a first‑generation immigrant from China, former climate researcher, software engineer, investment manager, and now high school math teacher. He says he was motivated to teach math because he “takes great joy in seeing other people learning math” and wanted to show both the beauty and practicality of the subject.

In his book, Unbalanced: Memoir of an Immigrant Math Teacher, he recounts being labelled a “white supremacist” in one class after he and a classmate asked basic academic questions. He also reports another class incident: following the death of George Floyd, students were given a short mourning period and then asked to return to class—but the teacher facilitating that was later made to cry after being accused of lacking empathy.

When Yellow Heights argued in favor of standardized testing, saying it’s “not perfect” but offers an objective assessment of learning outcomes, he was labeled “ideologically violent.” He says the label came not because of violent language or threats, but simply for advocating for a system of measurement many educators criticize.

The teacher’s story raises broader concerns about ideological pressure within higher‑education programs and K‑12 training pipelines. If a future teacher can be branded “ideologically violent” for supporting assessment tools, it suggests educators with unconventional views may face professional risks. For families, students, and taxpayers seeking accountability and reliable assessment in schools, this story highlights questions about the resilience of objective standards.

University Moves DEI Office to Secretive Location Amid Federal Scrutiny

November 6, 2025

Doctor — Medical Supplies (Myriam Zilles/Unsplash)

The Washington University School of Medicine (WUSM) has moved its Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) from a publicly accessible location to a restricted floor—just as federal scrutiny intensifies over race‑based hiring and admissions practices. The relocation follows a formal civil rights complaint filed by America First Legal, urging the Department of Justice to investigate the university’s DEI operations for potential violations of federal anti‑discrimination laws.

Previously, WUSM’s DEI office operated from a first-floor suite in the North Medical Building. Floor plans listed the location clearly, and the office was open to students and faculty. However, it has now been relocated to the 12th floor of the Mid Campus Center, an area not marked on public floor plans and only accessible to individuals with approved credentials.

America First Legal alleges the move may be an attempt to obscure DEI practices from federal review. The group’s letter to the DOJ charges that WUSM engages in “systematic, intentional, and ongoing discrimination” based on race, sex, and other protected categories under the cover of diversity initiatives. The group says the university is potentially violating Title VI and Title IX by using DEI policies that impose racial and gender preferences.

The timing of the relocation raises concerns, especially given the current environment of heightened federal oversight. Federal agencies have been reevaluating DEI programs at publicly funded institutions following legal challenges and executive action targeting race-conscious policies in education.

Questions remain about the rationale for the move and whether the university is complying with transparency obligations tied to federal funding. The Department of Justice has not yet commented on whether it will investigate.

Bernie Moreno’s HIRE Act Sends Shockwaves Through India

November 5, 2025

Trump Paris Climate Accords withdrawal — Lucas Sankey/Unsplash

Sen. Bernie Moreno’s Halting International Relocation of Employment (HIRE) Act is drawing international backlash, particularly from India, where major political and economic figures warn the legislation could severely disrupt the country’s booming tech-services economy. The bill proposes a 25% excise tax on U.S. companies making outsourcing payments to foreign workers, aiming to protect American jobs from being shipped overseas.

Jairam Ramesh, General Secretary of the Indian National Congress, raised alarm over the bill, calling it a direct threat to India’s IT services, business process outsourcing (BPO), consulting firms, and global capability centers (GCCs). Ramesh said the bill “reflects a growing mindset in the U.S.” that white-collar jobs should not be lost to India, much like blue-collar manufacturing jobs were lost to China.

India’s tech sector, heavily reliant on U.S. contracts, is bracing for economic fallout. Ramesh warned the legislation, if enacted, could light a fire under the Indian economy and force a major reassessment of U.S.-India economic relations.

The bill, introduced in early October and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance, establishes a “Domestic Workforce Fund” that would receive the tax revenue and use it for American workforce development. It also removes the ability for companies to deduct outsourcing payments from their tax filings.

Moreno said the HIRE Act is about ending the decades-long practice of “globalist politicians and C-Suite executives” outsourcing American jobs to chase lower labor costs. His bill, he argues, will “hit them where it hurts: their pocketbooks.”

Indian officials and economists see the HIRE Act as an expansion of economic protectionism. Former Reserve Bank of India Governor Raghuram Rajan warned that the bill represents a “creeping extension of tariffs from goods to services.”

The proposal follows Moreno’s earlier SAFE HIRE Act, which received backing from labor unions for imposing strict penalties, including prison time, on company executives who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Together, the two bills form a coordinated effort to reshape U.S. labor and immigration policy by punishing companies that prioritize foreign workers over Americans.

India’s tech sector is already under strain from a recently imposed $100,000 H-1B visa fee. The HIRE Act, if passed, would further restrict access to U.S. job markets, cut off billions in service export revenue, and put thousands of Indian tech workers at risk.

Supreme Court Could Crush Trump Tariffs, GOP Secretly Cheers

November 5, 2025

Jamie-Raskin-1 — WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 14: U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) questions General Services Administration (GSA) Administrator Robin Carnahan as she testifies before a House Oversight and Accountability Committee oversight hearing on the GSA in the Rayburn House Office Building on November 14, 2023 in Washington, DC. The Committee questioned Carnahan on the GSA's decision to place the new F.B.I. headquarters in Maryland. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said Wednesday that many Republicans are privately hoping the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs, calling them a political and economic “nightmare.” His comments came during an interview on CNN’s Inside Politics following oral arguments over the legality of Trump’s tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Trump’s tariffs, implemented during his first term and reinstated after his 2024 victory, have targeted nations like China in an effort to protect American industries and reduce trade deficits. The legality of these measures is now being tested before the high court, which is examining whether IEEPA gives the president the authority to impose tariffs during non-military emergencies.

Raskin argued that even conservative justices such as Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts expressed “serious skepticism” over the administration’s interpretation of IEEPA. He said the law does not mention tariffs and that no prior president had used it in that context.

The case centers on whether the president has unilateral constitutional authority to impose tariffs or if such powers are strictly limited by statute. Raskin said the argument that IEEPA grants such power “tested the credulity of the court” and suggested justices were not inclined to accept it.

Raskin further claimed that shifting political dynamics have led many Republicans to now oppose the tariffs they once supported, due to their economic impact. “A lot of Republicans are hoping the court strikes it down,” he said, citing the political liabilities associated with rising consumer prices and strained international trade relationships.

The court’s decision could have major implications for the scope of presidential economic power, especially as Trump continues to push aggressive trade policies aimed at boosting American manufacturing and protecting domestic jobs.

Zohran Mamdani Flips NYC, Socialist Wins With Broke Elites

November 5, 2025

Zohran Mamdani’s stunning victory in the New York City mayoral race signals more than just another far-left win in a deep-blue city—it reveals a major realignment brewing across America’s urban political landscape. Once an obscure city councilman polling in the single digits, Mamdani now stands as the first openly socialist mayor of New York City in modern history.

Mamdani shattered turnout records, winning over one million votes—the most for any NYC mayoral candidate since 1969. He swept through gentrified enclaves like Park Slope and Prospect Heights with margins topping 60 and 70 points. But what shocked political observers was his ability to flip working-class Black and Latino neighborhoods that had overwhelmingly rejected him during the Democrat primary just months earlier.

In Brownsville, Mamdani turned a 40-point primary loss into an 18-point general election win. In East Harlem and Mott Haven, he posted 30-point and 22-point victories, respectively. While his base remained white, professional-class progressives in Brooklyn, the socialist candidate successfully grafted on enough support from poorer communities to pull off a citywide win.

This coalition is built on shared economic frustration. In gentrified Brooklyn, young professionals with six-figure salaries are drowning under rent that exceeds $4,600 per month. They followed the old script—college degrees, stable jobs—but remain renters with no homeownership in sight. Mamdani tapped into their disillusionment, offering rent freezes, free child care, and expanded government programs.

For working-class families in the outer boroughs, the appeal was different but related: economic insecurity, housing instability, and unaffordable basic needs. Mamdani’s message traveled. His base turned out in droves; the rest gave him just enough support to win.

Conservatives who dismiss this as a Park Slope fad risk missing the larger warning. Mamdani built a winning coalition of the “credentialed but broke” and the chronically underserved—both locked out of prosperity under current policies. His victory may preview a broader strategy the radical left could replicate in other cities.

Georgia Governor Race Heats Up, Trump Pick Takes Early Lead

November 5, 2025

Ed Rollins PAC — U.S. Flagpole (Christopher Burns/Unsplash)

With just over six months until Georgia’s 2026 primary elections, new polling reveals a wide-open field in both party races for governor, though Lt. Gov. Burt Jones holds an early lead among Republicans thanks to an endorsement from President Donald Trump. The poll, conducted by the University of Georgia for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, also shows a significant percentage of voters remain undecided.

On the Democrat side, former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms has taken a strong lead with 40% support among likely primary voters. Bottoms, who recently served as a senior adviser to the Harris-Walz campaign, holds a nearly 30-point advantage over her closest rival, former DeKalb CEO Michael Thurmond, who stands at 11%. The rest of the field is trailing in single digits.

Despite Bottoms’ early lead, 40% of Democrat voters remain undecided, signaling potential shifts ahead as the field narrows and campaigns intensify.

Among Republicans, the race is even more fluid. A full 55% of likely GOP primary voters have not yet picked a candidate. However, Burt Jones leads with 22% following Trump’s early endorsement. Secretary of State Michael Thurmond follows with 15%, while Attorney General Chris Carr pulls in 7%.

With current Governor Brian Kemp term-limited after two consecutive terms, the governor’s mansion is up for grabs for the first time in eight years. Republicans are aiming to keep control of the office, while Democrats are attempting to reclaim it for the first time in two decades.

Georgia’s primaries are scheduled for May 19, 2026. If no candidate earns over 50% of the vote, the top two contenders will head to a runoff, with the eventual winner facing off in the November general election.