Hardship isn’t new—but our response to it is

American  Thinker 

Every time the federal government shuts down, the headlines follow a predictable script: “Federal workers suffer.” We hear stories of long hours without pay, families unable to afford groceries, mortgages teetering on default, and lines at food banks stretching longer than ever. These stories are real, and the hardship is genuine. But they are not unique. Nor are they new.

Millions of Americans outside the federal workforce experience similar or worse conditions every year—without the guarantee of backpay, without job security, and without the media’s sympathetic spotlight. Private-sector workers get laid off, hours are cut, businesses close, and entire industries shift. And when that happens, there is no promise of retroactive compensation. The suffering is permanent, not postponed.

So why does the narrative surrounding federal employees feel so disproportionate? Why does their temporary hardship dominate the national conversation while the chronic instability of millions goes largely ignored?

The answer lies not just in media bias, but in a deeper cultural drift—a shift away from personal responsibility and toward grievance-based storytelling. We’ve become a society that highlights suffering more than preparedness, emotion more than agency. And nowhere is this more evident than in our collective financial fragility.

Let’s be clear: the real crisis isn’t the shutdown. It’s that so many Americans—federal employees included—cannot survive even a few weeks without a paycheck. That’s not systemic oppression. That’s poor planning. And it’s time we said so.

There was a time when financial literacy was a civic norm. We were taught to save six months’ worth of expenses in an emergency fund. Not because we expected disaster, but because we respected its inevitability. Layoffs happen. Illness strikes. Markets crash. Governments stall. Life isn’t fair—but it is predictable. And preparedness was once a mark of maturity, not privilege.

Today, that ethic has eroded. Many middle-class and even upper-middle-class Americans live paycheck to paycheck—not from necessity, but from misaligned priorities. Luxury spending eclipses savings. Vacations, gadgets, and lifestyle upgrades take precedence over emergency reserves. The problem isn’t income—it’s discipline.

This isn’t a condemnation. It’s a wake-up call.

If you’re a federal employee caught in the crosshairs of a shutdown, and you find yourself unable to make ends meet, let this moment teach you something deeper than frustration. Let it teach you resilience. Let it teach you stewardship. Let it teach you that your financial well-being is your responsibility—and no one else’s.

Because here’s the truth: you will get paid. The shutdown will end. Back pay will come. But the hardship you feel now is not about lost income—it’s about lost preparation. And that’s something you can change.

Start today. Build your emergency fund. Prioritize savings over indulgence. Reclaim the ethic of readiness because the next crisis is already forming. And when it comes, you’ll either be a victim of circumstance or a steward of foresight.

This isn’t just about federal workers. It’s about all of us. It’s about restoring a culture that values agency over grievance, preparation over panic, and responsibility over entitlement. It’s about teaching our children that life will test them—and that the best defense is not outrage, but readiness.

The media may continue to highlight suffering. That’s their business. But our business—our duty—is to respond with clarity, not complaint. To say: “Yes, this is hard. But I will be ready next time.”

Because hardship isn’t new. But our response to it can be.

So to those who feel the sting of this moment:

Own it. Accept it. Move on.

And next time, be ready. 

Uncontrolled Immigration has Pushed America Toward Third-World Status

American  Thinker 

In the shadow of a government shutdown now stretching into its second month -- the longest in U.S. history -- millions of Americans are staring down empty shelves and uncertainty.

Over the weekend, 42 million recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), once known as food stamps, lost access to their benefits for the first time ever.

This isn't just a funding glitch; it's a symptom of a deeper rot.

The federal government's coffers are strained not by inefficiency alone, but by the staggering fiscal burden of an unauthorized immigrant population that has ballooned to unprecedented levels.

The greatest mistake of recent decades? Allowing an estimated 25 million illegal immigrants to flood into America, transforming a beacon of prosperity into a strained, divided nation teetering on the edge of third-world dysfunction.

The numbers tell a harrowing story.

While nonpartisan researchers like the Pew Research Center peg the unauthorized population at a record 14 million in 2023, with growth continuing into 2024 before a slight dip in mid-2025, more conservative analyses paint a grimmer picture.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates 18.6 million illegal aliens as of March 2025, a 28% surge since the start of the Biden administration.

Factor in "got-aways" -- those who evaded Border Patrol, tallied at over 2 million from 2021 to 2023 -- and undercounts in Census data, and the true figure approaches 25 million, as claimed by figures like J.D. Vance during the 2024 campaign.

This isn't hyperbole; it's arithmetic born of lax enforcement, visa overstays, and parole programs that granted temporary status to millions from crisis-hit nations like Venezuela and Haiti -- statuses now revoked under the Trump administration, leaving over 500,000 in limbo.

The economic fallout is catastrophic, echoing the resource scarcity of developing nations.

FAIR calculates the annual cost to taxpayers at $150 billion, covering education, health care, and welfare for illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children.

Unauthorized households use welfare programs at twice the rate of native ones, despite restrictions, through citizen children and emergency services.

In states like California and Texas, schools overflow with non-English speakers, diverting billions from core curricula.

Hospitals in border regions report unpaid bills topping $1 billion yearly, forcing closures and rationing care -- a scene more akin to underfunded clinics in Latin America than America's vaunted health care system.

Worse, this influx has depressed wages for low-skilled American workers by up to 5%, per economic models, while inflating housing costs in sanctuary cities by 20%.

The Congressional Budget Office warns that the "immigration surge" adds $23 billion annually to mandatory spending by 2034, exacerbating deficits already at $2 trillion.

Now, with the shutdown halting SNAP disbursements, low-income families -- many competing directly with unauthorized laborers for jobs -- are hit hardest.

In Missouri, 650,000 residents face empty pantries; in Delaware, $20 million in aid vanished overnight. Food banks, already stretched by immigrant demand, are buckling. This isn't abundance; it's scarcity masquerading as generosity, where American taxpayers subsidize a parallel economy that undercuts their own.

Crime, too, has surged in ways that erode the rule of law, fostering the chaos of failed states. While overall unauthorized immigrant crime rates are debated, high-profile cases abound: In 2025 alone, ICE arrested hundreds for sex trafficking, homicide, and assaults -- offenders protected by prior administrations' catch-and-release policies.

A Guatemalan national in Massachusetts raped a bound child; an Ecuadoran in the same state faced 20 child sex charges. In Phoenix, a mail room aiding the homeless - overburdened by migrant influx -- highlights how sanctuary policies shield criminals, turning neighborhoods into no-go zones.

FAIR links this to a 30% rise in border-related fentanyl deaths, now claiming 100,000 American lives yearly.

When President Trump warns of a "crime-ridden third-world nation," he's not exaggerating; he's diagnosing a breakdown where enforcement is politicized, and victims are collateral.

Socially, the transformation is profound.

Mixed-status households number 12 million, per Pew, breeding resentment as native families watch resources dwindle. Cultural enclaves in cities like New York and Los Angeles strain integration, with non-English speakers comprising 20% of public school students.

Remittances -- $60 billion outflow annually - drain local economies, mirroring capital flight in unstable regimes. The shutdown amplifies this: With E-Verify halted and DOL filings frozen, employers hire unchecked, deepening the underclass divide.

America's slide toward third-world status isn't inevitable, but it's accelerating. MIT economist Peter Temin describes a "dual economy" -- one for elites, another for the struggling masses -- fueled by inequality and unchecked migration. The 2011 deportation peak of 396,000 under Obama pales against today's crisis; even Trump's revocations of TPS for 700,000 can't stem the tide alone. The fix demands borders that work: mass deportations, ending parole abuse, and merit-based legal pathways that prioritize skills over sympathy.

This mistake -- tolerating 25 million unauthorized entries -- has cost trillions, shattered communities, and invited the very decay we once exported aid to combat.

As SNAP lines lengthen and shutdown scars deepen, Americans must reclaim sovereignty. Otherwise, the land of opportunity risks becoming a cautionary tale: a first-world shell housing third-world woes.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

BBC director general Tim Davie and News CEO Deborah Turness resign over Trump documentary edit

 

White House reacts with two word response

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has posted two words on X in response to Tim Davie and Deborah Turness resigning.

She posts two screenshots of news articles side by side, external: above the first she writes "shot" over a Telegraph article with the headline: "Trump goes to war with 'fake news' BBC".

"Chaser" she writes above the second - a BBC News article announcing Tim Davie's resignation.

Earlier this week, Leavitt called the BBC "100% fake news" in response to a Panorama documentary which misled viewers by editing a speech by US President Donald Trump. 

 https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cd9kqz1yyxkt

 

Secretary Marco Rubio Delivers Remarks with Leaders from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and the Kyrgyz Republic

Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivers remarks from the State Department during an assembly of leaders from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and the Kyrgyz Republic (C5+1) alongside senior U.S. Senate leaders and ambassadors.

As noted by Secretary Rubio, a partnership with the Central Asia region provides an alternative to the influence of Russia and China, and permits the nations within the region to expand their independent economic development.   Kazakhstan Foreign Minister Yermek Kosherbayev, Kyrgyz Republic Foreign Minister Jeenbek Kulubaev, Tajikistan Foreign Minister Sirojiddin Muhriddin, Turkmenistan Foreign Minister Rashid Meredov, and Uzbekistan Foreign Minister Bakhtiyor Saidov all participated.  {Direct Rumble Link} WATCH:

The Only Rep Born in Cuba Has a Powerful Warning About 'Marxists' Like Mamdani Holding Power in US

RedState 

Zohran Mamdani is starting to exemplify the old saying, "A cheetah does not change his spots."

The self-proclaimed Democrat Socialist mayor-elect of New York City has already made statements that have even some Democrats, like former Obama administration green energy czar, and current CNN host and commentator Van Jones, questioning how much of a 180 he has done since the results came in on Election Day on Nov. 4.

And it's not like Democrat leaders don't know what Mamdani is all about, as we wrote just days before the off-year elections, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) decrying making the extremists in his party the face of its future--and not mincing words on the end-stage of socialism wherever it's been implemented. My colleague Nick Arama wrote of Sen. Fetterman:

"We all know how socialism works out," he warned. That's a short, powerful statement. He doesn't need to elaborate. Because he's right. We know. And we don't want to go there. 

Fetterman also slipped in a scolding of the Democrats for still keeping the government shut down, "This is wrong. We are hurting the very people we fight for. We're getting nothing for them if we continue to keep our government shut down."

Need even more evidence from this week? I have picked out two for you, readers.

First, the New York chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), according to reports, are putting pressure on Mamdani to implement a wish list of "demands" now that he's risen to Gracie Mansion, including--among other disturbing radical-left items--a state government adoption of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS). Ominously, as RedState's Ward Clark wrote, that is not pie in the sky thinking, since Zohran Mamdani has openly supported the antisemitic divestiture movement in the past.

Here's the second one. Former Miami-Dade mayor and now-Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL-28) isn't staying silent over what his family witnessed as survivors of a brutal Communist regime--and he has a powerful warning about "Communists and Marxists" like Mamdani who try to trick people into buying into what amounts to Marxism--whatever they might call themselves politically

As Gimenez wrote in a post sharing a video on his X account:

I’m the only Member of Congress born in #Cuba.

My family was forced from home after the Communist takeover — I recognize the extremists when I see them.

Mamdani is a Marxist & we need to fight that much harder to stop this fringe Democrat experiment for America!

Watch:

"I didn't speak a word of English when I got here, I was seven years old, and the reason I'm here is my parents brought me here seeking freedom," he said. "Freedom from Communism, freedom from a Marxist regime. So I can tell you, I know a Communist and a Marxist when I see one."

"They may call themselves socialists, they may call themselves a Democratic Socialist but make no mistake - Mamdani in New York, he's a Marxist," he said.

Rep. Gimenez explained that what bothers him is that soon-to-be Mayor Mamdani claims to be "proud" of who he is--then does not proclaim his obvious identity as a Marxist. But the congressman says he knows the obvious reason why:

He couldn't and he can't, because he knew he wouldn't get elected.

Here's someone we should listen to. We must be on our guard, and warn others who might be unaware of this deceptive ploy by the Left. The perils of Marxism, as our late happy warrior, Andrew Breitbart, warned so many times, are not something to be taken lightly. A far-left radical in that vein, luckily, was not elected as the mayor of another major U.S. city, Minneapolis, on Tuesday.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently said he's heard from others who fled Castro's regime that the pitch from Mamdani sounds familiar:

Lastly, this X user might have a point about the stakes in this ideological battle:

In a Barrage of Social Media Posts, Trump Rages Against Tariff Critics and Promises $2,000 ‘Dividend’ Checks for Many Americans

 The president appears concerned that last week’s oral arguments that the Supreme Court could limit his tariff authority.

President Trump on Sunday raged against those who criticize and challenge his authority to impose tariffs on foreign imports, as he and other members of his administration worry that the Supreme Court could limit his tariff powers in the coming months. 

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two separate cases brought by groups of small businesses and Democratic-led states. Based on the questions asked by the justices during the hearing, it appears that a majority of the court is more than ready to impose some restrictions on Mr. Trump’s import taxes. 

On Sunday, it seems as if someone shared that analysis with Mr. Trump himself, leading the president to offer up a series of lengthy messages on his Truth Social platform before he hit the golf course near his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. 

“So, let’s get this straight??? The President of the United States is allowed (and fully approved by Congress!) to stop ALL TRADE with a Foreign Country (Which is far more onerous than a Tariff!), and LICENSE a Foreign Country, but is not allowed to put a simple Tariff on a Foreign Country, even for purposes of NATIONAL SECURITY,” Mr. Trump wrote in one message. “That is NOT what our great Founders had in mind! The whole thing is ridiculous!”

“Other Countries can Tariff us, but we can’t Tariff them??? It is their DREAM!!!” he exclaimed. “Businesses are pouring into the USA ONLY BECAUSE OF TARIFFS.”

“HAS THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NOT BEEN TOLD THIS??? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON???” he asked. 

In a separate message Mr. Trump wrote that those who oppose his tariffs are “FOOLS!”

“We are now the Richest, Most Respected Country In the World, With Almost No Inflation, and A Record Stock Market Price. 401k’s are Highest EVER,” he wrote. “A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent threw cold water on the idea of a tariff dividend, however. During an interview with ABC News’s “This Week” on Sunday, Mr. Bessent said that the dividend to which Mr. Trump was referring could take the form of tax cuts signed into law over the summer. 

“The $2,000 dividend could come in lots of forms and lots of ways,” the treasury secretary said. “It could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president’s agenda — you know, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security.”

Mr. Trump’s tariffs were already declared illegal by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, though the import taxes have remained in place as the appellate process plays out. 

The justices of the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case last week, and the arguments did not go well for the administration. One member of the court who seemed especially concerned about the president’s unprecedented, unilateral imposition of tariffs was Mr. Trump’s first nominee to the high court — Justice Neal Gorsuch. During Wednesday’s arguments, he pressed solicitor general D. John Sauer about his theory of Congress abdicating the power of taxation in this way. 

“What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war, to the President?” the justice asked, clearly concerned with the executive branch’s expanded power. He also pressed Mr. Sauer about the possibility of a Democratic president using “emergency” tariff powers under the guise of a “climate” emergency. 

Chief Justice Roberts similarly asked pointed questions of Mr. Sauer. “Who pays the tariffs?” he asked, leading Mr. Sauer to offer a kind of winding answer about how it depended on the context of the relationship between the foreign exporter and the domestic importer. 

The chief justice made his skepticism crystal clear to those in attendance. He noted to Mr. Sauer during arguments that taxation has always been a “core power of Congress” which a president cannot usurp.

https://www.nysun.com/article/in-a-barrage-of-social-media-posts-trump-rages-against-tariff-critics-and-promises-2000-dividend-checks-for-many-americans

The Downfall of America's Cities: Over-Educated, Under-Informed Voters

RedState 

I'm sure most of you still think that I'm an odd one to be writing about the state of America's urban areas. If you've been reading my work, you know I had a mostly rural youth, and while I lived and worked in urban areas for many years, now I'm back where I belong, in a house out in the woods. We have our issues out here in the boonies as well; every place does. But all in all, most of us stick together, look out for one another, and get by pretty well.

So why am I concerned about America's cities? Simple. Throughout America's history, the cities have been vital parts of the American culture, the American way of life, and of American prosperity. For many years, America's great cities were the world's great cities: San Francisco, Chicago, and New York, just to name a few. But these cities are now falling apart; under decades of Democrat rule, under decades of incompetent leadership, they have fallen far and fast, to the point where they may be beyond the point of no return.

This recent election, one that saw an unabashed socialist elected as mayor of New York, yielded some other interesting results, those having to do with college-educated voters. Now, full disclosure: I'm college-educated, with a bachelor's degree in biology and an MBA in technology management. My wife is likewise educated, with a bachelor's in animal science and an MBA in healthcare administration. I think we're both pretty smart people, and I think the way we vote reflects that. Then again, one of the smartest people I've ever known was my father, who had only a high school diploma, received in 1940, but he could and did intelligently discuss topics ranging from Greek philosophers to cosmology.

There's more to intelligence than education, and if the voters of New York City showed us anything in this recent election, it's that, as the Issues & Insight editorial board recently wrote: 

Among other things, the exit polls show that Zohran Mamdani’s victory came entirely because of the support he got from those who were college educated – 57% of whom voted for the inexperienced radical socialist immigrant born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Just 42% of those without a college education were foolish enough to want this wrecking ball running their city.

What’s even more interesting is that the more time spent in school, the higher the support for Mamdani. Just 40% of high school graduates voted for him, compared with 41% of those who dropped out of college, 46% of those with an associate’s degree, and 57% of those with a bachelor’s or better.

Why is this? Well, whatever else this outcome is, it shouldn't be surprising. College-educated voters trend to the left of the non-college-educated; this isn't new. They also vote in higher numbers. It's not an overwhelming difference, but it's there, and it's enough to swing elections.

Why, then, would these supposedly educationally attained people vote for leftist politicians?

My mother, also an extremely intelligent person with a high-school education (1944), had a derisive term she would apply to certain people of our acquaintance who had education but little in the way of good sense: She called them "educated idiots." This certainly is a phenomenon that obtains, maybe more so today than in her time. Our universities not only crank out graduates with a leavening of Ethnic Underwater Dog-Polishing Studies degrees, but also serve as leftist indoctrination centers. That is, in fact, a problem across the education range, from K-12 to graduate schools. 

They get away with it, in part, because college-educated people also, on the margin, have higher incomes. That allows them to shelter themselves, at least to some extent, from the effects of the very bad policies they vote for. They can live in secure buildings, in better neighborhoods, and can better absorb the higher taxes and costs that leftist governments bring.

As evidence, we can cast our optics back to the election that put Zohran Mamdani in Gracie Mansion, and note that while he captured a majority of the college-educated vote, he didn't approach half the vote of people earning under $50,000 per annum, or of those who thought that the Big Apple's economy was struggling. The editorial continued:

Also interesting is the fact that Mamdani failed to win a majority of the vote among those earning less than $50,000 – the people his messages were supposedly directed at – but got 52% of those making more than $50,000.

Mamdani also failed to capture the vote of those who think New York’s economy isn’t doing so well – just 46% of those who said the economy is poor voted for Mamdani. They know better than to think that tax hikes, rent freezes, free buses, and Soviet-style grocery stores will help them.

In other words, Mamdani’s support came from well-educated voters who live in an economic bubble – the people least likely to suffer the ill-effects of Mamdani’s policies.

So, what's the right answer to this? Well, it's not easy, but this is what needs to happen: Education will remain as it is, largely a multi-level leftist indoctrination center, until the left's long march through this institution ends. Conservative people, people of real-world experience and the good sense that breeds, need to be involved. They need to run for school board seats. They need to be on university boards of regents. They need to get involved as alumni when and where they can. That's how the left achieved this state of affairs, the one that exists now. That's how we take it back. 

Here in our corner of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, on the same day that New York chose a communist mayor, we elected to the school board candidate, a Republican candidate, who championed traditional education on the basics. That's how this gets done. At our local level, and your local level, and at everyone's local level. The right needs to start its own long march through the institutions, and every step along the way will be contested. 

But we, remember, are the people who get things done. We are the people who know how things work best. And we are the people who will always be around, after the socialist jurisdictions crash and burn under the weight of their own stupid policies.

Hot Takes: Democrats Are Hopping Mad After SCOTUS Allows Trump Admin to Pause SNAP Benefit Payments

RedState 

RedState wrote on Friday night about SCOTUS giving a slight breather to the Trump administration on the postponement of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit payments, with a late evening order, while the 1st Circuit makes its deliberations on the case. And you may be unsurprised to learn the Democrats are making their feelings known about the whole situation. 

Another way of putting it--they're hopping mad. I'll swing around to that in a minute. First, to make sense of it, find below my piece on the Supreme Court stay in the SNAP case, written by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, late last night.

In the meantime, my colleague streiff had reason to call shenanigans on the Dems earlier on Saturday, since the order by the high court didn't stop over a dozen blue states from doling out full payments to SNAP beneficiaries starting on Friday.

Democrats being Democrats, they have sprung forth in the wake of the Court's stay, unsurprisingly. Here's just a sampling of their signs of rage. First, in line with streiff's story, Massachusetts' Governor Martha Healy (D) was one of the blue state executives who worked to siphon all the food assistance money despite the SCOTUS stay, in a post on her official X account.

...[Gov. Healey] announced Friday that SNAP recipients in the Bay State could begin receiving their full benefits as early as Saturday. On Saturday morning, she said that the planned payments for families who went without earlier benefits were successfully sent out but that officials are reviewing what the latest pause means for recipients expecting benefits next week.

The governor wrung out every fear-mongering opportunity with her message, adding, “President Trump’s cruelty knows no bounds,” and "President Trump needs to stop playing politics with people’s lives and pay full SNAP benefits for everyone."

Now, I may have missed something in a change to our form of government, but doesn't that sound like an edict only a king could make? Oh, irony.

NY's Governor Kathy Hochul (D) also sent out the checks as usual, then did something of a freak-out on social media, writing on X that "[Pres.] Trump fought for this. He doesn’t care if millions of Americans go hungry."

Next, we see Dem leadership in the form of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY-8) trying to use the decision as a way of extending the Schumer Shutdown for no real reason. Referring to Republicans and/or the Trump administration as "extremists," he wrote on X:

The Trump administration is begging the Supreme Court to block an order requiring them to immediately release SNAP benefits. Meanwhile. Millions of hungry Americans are at risk of starving. These extremists are sick people.

Well, on second thought, the leftists might have a reason relating to insurance companies and Obamacare--but not a good one, as we wrote.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), ever the fabulist, compared the shutdown he helped create to a nuclear explosion in his missive--then went in on the SCOTUS stay:

For Trump to go all the way to the Supreme Court just to get out of having to pay SNAP benefits is pathological levels of vindictiveness

 This crisis is in the administration’s hands

Then there was everyone's favorite Democrat whom they love to hate, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):

In case you can't see the post, it reads:

The Trump Administration will go to any length — including appeal to the highest court in the land — if it means they can cut off food for hungry people. 

What is wrong with them?

We might well ask the senator the same question about himself and his colleagues. Fifteen times in a row, most of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate have voted to keep the federal government closed. And only two voted for the continuing resolution in the House. That's the only reason why SNAP is not able to function as usual, and that's why Speaker Mike Johnson cannot swear-in a new member of Congress.

And yes, Democrats, that is why the Affordable Care Act remains as broken as it has always been. Once we can end the shutdown, some of those things can be fixed or brought back online. The Democrats are right about one thing; this is not normal. They're just mistaken about where the solution lies.