Many “NYPD cops are considering retiring if Mamdani” becomes mayor, reports The Free Press’ Olivia Reingold.

Yet the force is already “facing a manpower crisis that has grown even worse in recent months.”

This year is set to “have one of the highest attrition rates of the past decade,” and ex-Commissioner Bill Bratton predicts “a very significant exodus from the NYPD” if Mamdani becomes mayor.

Mamdani’s plan “to embolden” the Civilian Complaint Review Board by giving it disciplinary powers, plus his other social-justice priorities, such as a “proposed Department of Community Safety” and increased reliance on “gun violence interrupters,” promise an environment in which the “life of a cop” is no longer worth the costs.

Endorsements from progressive groups like the League of Conservation Voters “can meaningfully impact” a politician’s “odds of being considered for upward mobility” within the Democratic Party, observes Slow Boring’s Matt Yglesias.

“This creates an incentive to say ‘yes’ to whatever they happen to ask for,” even if this alignment “can throw the race to Republicans.”

E.g., LCV’s questionnaire for pols has a “fundamental focus” on “shutting down the fossil fuel industry,” with “no real concern for cost of living.”

The groups ought to “behave in a less dysfunctional manner,” but ultimately party leaders must “outline a national agenda for the party that blows off these questionnaires and can plausibly compete across a large map of states.”

“The British government has a very peculiar definition of freedom,” snarks Reason’s Matthew Petti.

While “explaining new restrictions on protest,” on Sunday, “Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood implied that freedom is something the public shouldn’t exercise freely if it bothers others,” saying: “Just because you have a freedom doesn’t mean you have to use it at every moment of every day.”

Petti fumes: “Under Mahmood’s new protest regulations, police will be able to move, reschedule, or limit the size of protests based on the ‘cumulative disruption’ caused by similar protests,” so, effectively, “if a movement is annoying enough to the powers that be, they can push it off the streets.”

“The immediate context of the restrictions is an attempt to crack down on pro-Palestinian unrest,” but “the authorities have gone after causes across the political spectrum.”

Americans have seen an “explosive collision between the president’s determination to enforce federal immigration law and many Democratic leaders’ determination not to enforce federal immigration law,” notes the Washington Examiner’s Byron York, with raging conflicts across the country, “from peaceful protests to violent protests to obstruction of immigration authorities’ work to attempted murder of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.”

In a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll, 78% favor “deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have committed crimes.”

Yet Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Johnson are fighting Trump’s “deployment of National Guard troops to enforce federal immigration law.”

Whatever Democrats care to pretend, when the president “enforces federal immigration law, Trump is doing what most people want.”

“Last week’s murder of a man at a synagogue in Manchester, England,” on Yom Kippur surely must have further reduced the already “thinning ranks” of Europe’s Jews, sighs The Wall Street Journal’s Gerard Baker.

“Creating a shtetl in the Antarctic” now seems “more appealing than the alternative.”

Blame the British establishment’s leaders for the “circumstances” that allowed that attack.

In the name of promoting “multiculturalism” and avoiding “Islamophobia,” they closed their eyes, even as “thousands of girls, mostly white,” were “raped and abused” by men of “mostly south Asian heritage starting in the 1990s.”

After Oct. 7, 2023, news outlets engaged in “unrelenting anti-Israel propaganda.” Jews are “the immediate casualties of this extremist ideological tide.”

But “their peril is a signal of the menace to civilization itself.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board