Democratic Anger Vs. Trump Accomplishment

posted by Byron York at Townhall 

President Donald Trump met with reporters in Scotland on Monday to tout his new trade deal with the European Union. Accompanied by United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump held court for more than an hour, taking questions on trade, China, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and more.

One subject that barely came up, about 50 minutes into the news conference, was the dead sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Spoiler alert: No news was made on that front.

If you follow things, you're probably seeing a lot of stories suggesting some sort of undefined scandal involving Trump and Epstein, who were friends in the 1990s and remained so until 2004, two years before Epstein was first charged with a crime. You're seeing it not because reporters have discovered new information to change the substance of what is already known. Still, because Democrats and their allies in the media hope that repetition of the story will bring down Trump's approval rating and perhaps shake loose some currently unknown, damaging revelation they hope exists.

At least so far, it's not working, and a new poll shows how far Democrats are falling short. In a Wall Street Journal survey taken July 16-20, respondents consistently expressed more confidence in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party to handle key issues, and they expressed more positive feelings toward Trump and Republicans than toward Democrats.

First, the favorable/unfavorable ratings. The poll found that 45% of those surveyed had a very or somewhat favorable impression of Trump, versus 52% who had a very or somewhat unfavorable impression. For the Republican Party, the numbers were 43% favorable versus 54% unfavorable, and for the Democratic Party, the numbers were 33% favorable and 63% unfavorable.

The big news in that? The Democrats' 33-63 rating -- the worst for the party since 1990. Indeed, the headline of the article was "Democrats Get Lowest Rating From Voters in 35 Years, WSJ Poll Finds."

The poll suggests that Democrats' current strategy, focused mostly on Trump-bashing, hasn't paid off in higher ratings. The reason: While many voters might not like Trump and Republicans, or be ambivalent about them, they have less confidence in Democrats.

"On the whole, voters disapprove of the president's handling of the economy, inflation, tariffs, and foreign policy," the Journal reports. "And yet in each case, the new Journal poll found, voters nonetheless say they trust Republicans rather than Democrats to handle those same issues in Congress."

Start with Trump's ratings on handling issues. For the economy, the Journal found him at 44-53 -- that is, with 44% approval and 53% disapproval. On the specific issue of inflation, he was 44-55. On tariffs 40-57. On foreign policy, 47-51.

Then look at the Republican vs. Democrat version of those questions. When asked which party is best able to handle the economy, 39% said Republicans, while 27% said Democrats. On inflation specifically, 38% said Republicans and 28% said Democrats. On tariffs, 37% said Republicans and 30% said Democrats. On foreign policy, 39% said Republicans and 31% said Democrats.

The numbers suggest Democrats, who are happy targeting Trump from dawn till dusk, are not convincing voters they can do a better job than the president and his party.

That's where Epstein comes in. Much as they did from 2017 to 2019, when they accused Trump of colluding with Russia, many Democrats appear ready to make the case against Trump based on the Epstein matter a centerpiece of their opposition to the president.

Will that rile the voters? And more specifically, will it make voters angry in the absence of any powerful revelations about Epstein -- and continued accomplishments by Trump? Democrats appear to hope so. During this summer break, the Journal reports, Democrats "are hoping for a repeat of this spring's recess, when angry voters flooded into town-hall meetings, heckling Republican lawmakers and challenging them to do more to push back against Trump."

Maybe so. But success changes things. And Trump has had several significant successes in his first six months in office, enough to satisfy many independent or on-the-fence voters that he is making positive contributions to the country. Of course, hard-core Democrats and their allies in the Resistance are apoplectic about Trump because they are always apoplectic about Trump. What the new poll suggests is that for Democrats, anger is just not enough.

X22, And we Know, and more- July 30

 

Trump Is Back on Track

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

They thought they had us on the run with the Epstein nonsense, and it was an annoying tangent for a little while, but that’s done now. Trump the Conqueror is back again, putting wins up on the scoreboard and moving forward. Breaking the EU to his will is just his latest victory. We’ve got 3 1/2 more years of glory ahead, but we need to watch out because the Democrats are going to get more desperate than usual.

I’m not saying they might go so crazy as to make my new novel, American Apocalypse: The Second Civil War, come true, but they might go so crazy as to make my new novel come true.

For the first six months, Trump had quite a run going, closing down the border, annihilating the Iranian nuclear program, and passing the Big Beautiful Bill, as well as win after win in the courts, plus a total reset of the culture in terms of defunding government-sponsored communist media and government-sponsored communist academia. DEI is DOA. The tariffs didn’t bring about Armageddon; instead, they generated $100 billion for the Treasury without spiking inflation. But everything that goes up must come down.

And it did come down, temporarily, with the badly bungled Epstein rollout. The sad fact is that the administration raised hopes too high. Because conservatives are the abused wives of American politics who have absolutely no trust – and should have absolutely no trust – in anything, it got itself mired in the fallout of the creepy weirdo’s death. We got what we had always wanted, which was to have absolutely trustworthy people like Dan Bongino go in and take a look at the unreleased evidence, because all the stuff can’t possibly be released due to its grotesque nature, and report back on what they found. Well, the report was that they found not much at all. There’s no list of clients helpfully compiled by the weirdo with annotations about their preferred perversions. There’s no notarized PowerPoint slide deck of wrongdoing. There’s no videotape of Epstein channeling Ernst Stavro Blofeld and explaining his entire scheme to James Bond. It appears to be a creepy weirdo in his personal life who likes to hang around celebrities – yes, he was at Donald Trump’s wedding, along with Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barbara Walters, Shaquille O’Neal, and a bunch of other familiar faces. But there’s no evidence that Epstein was running a huge international ring of sickos. Nor is there any evidence that Trump participated in his perversions – but you knew that, because if there were even a hint of impropriety, it would’ve been blasted all over the front page of the New York Times back in 2016.

Still, some of the folks on our side objected, feeling betrayed and lied to. The terribly handled rollout of the information by members of the administration was no help, but in fairness, a few of our people were never going to accept any answer other than the worst-case scenario. That’s the problem with conspiracy theories - at some level, their advocates want them to be true. One communist jerk in a school book depository with Marine marksmanship training and a rifle is a lot less interesting than a massive CIA plot involving the mob, the military-industrial complex, and the saucer people. 

Most of us were willing to take “yuck” for an answer, and the Epstein affair polled down around temperance and American-Mauritanian relations on the list of things Republicans were most concerned about, but enough people were angry that it became a minor kerfuffle for the Democrats to exploit.

Suddenly, the members of the party that had the Epstein files in hand for the last four years were outraged that the non-existent docs aren’t being released now. It was transparently hypocritical, but that doesn’t matter. Democrats are born without a shame gene. They really thought they had something going and coordinated a narrative with every senator’s intern tweeting on their behalf about it. A normal Republican would have collapsed and given in. Luckily, Trump isn’t a normal Republican. He refused to play along and forced Mike Johnson not to play along and to send everyone home before they could make a bigger deal out of this nothingburger. The Democrats may try to resurrect the pseudo-scandal when they return in a few weeks, but by then, Trump will have not only secured the European Union trade deal but also accomplished some other objectives in the meantime. Epsteingate will fade.

The Dems’ problem is that they have nothing better in their quiver. What are they going to argue about? We should have more kiddie trans mutilations? We should have let those Iranians get the bomb? We should throw open the gates to uncounted hordes of Third World chiselers again? Epstein was the best weapon that they had, and it was pretty crappy. Epstein was a greedy scumbag, but he’s a dead greedy scumbag, so move on. What really matters is that America is at peace and the economy is booming. That’s what’s going to determine the 2026 midterms. And right now, America is at peace and the economy is booming.

So, what you’re going to see is desperation. The Democrats have to get more radical and more intense because that’s the only thing that’s going to satisfy the coterie of psychopaths that make up their base. The smartest play for them would be to be rational, and to be calm, and to try to work with Trump where they can and oppose him on things he does that aren’t quite as popular as the other things he does. But they can’t do that. Their base is kooky. It’s operating on emotion. What gets rewarded is not somebody who can rationally make his case to normal Americans in a way that normal Americans might appreciate. What gets rewarded is a lunatic screaming about how Trump, federal law enforcement, and anybody who voted for Trump are literally Nazis. They just accused starlet Sydney Sweeney of being a Nazi for not being a fat, pierced, blue-haired mutant. That’s nuts. These people just spent $20 million trying to figure out how to appeal to men and then decided that the best course of action was to hate on pretty girls. Well, they are the folks who thought that they could convince men to vote against Donald Trump because he was scoring with Playboy playmates. 

They can’t help it. They’re so wrapped up in their bizarre, pagan communist ideology that they are unable to coolly and rationally assess their opponents, size up our weaknesses, and ruthlessly exploit them. Instead, they are reactive and clumsy, substituting anger and vitriol for the kind of approaches that could appeal to the normal Americans who just want to live their lives. Pundits talk about how Biden was elected as the candidate of normalcy, and maybe that’s true, but he was undone because everyone around him was totally abnormal, and he was an eggplant to boot. 

The normal politician is Donald Trump. That’s because the normal state of affairs is an America at peace. The normal state of affairs is an America with a booming economy. The normal state of affairs is an America where SSRI-gobbling wine women can’t chop off their little kids’ genitals in order to make themselves more interesting to other SSRI-gobbling wine women. 

The old saw by James Carville is correct, but it doesn’t go far enough. Yes, it’s the economy, stupid. But now it’s more than that. It’s the normalcy, you freaking weirdos.

French University Rejects Gaza Student Over 'Hateful' Online Posts

 

A top French university said Wednesday it cancelled the enrolment of a woman student from Gaza because of her social media posts that the country's interior ministry called "hateful".

Authorities did not release the content of the messages but screenshots shown on social media indicated the young woman had reposted messages calling for the death of Jewish people.

Israel is seeking to crush the Islamist militant movement Hamas through a devastating offensive in Gaza after the group launched deadly attacks on Israel in 2023.  

 

 The woman had been offered a place at the Sciences Po Lille university following a recommendation by the French consulate in Jerusalem, the establishment said. 

 

 

Sciences Po Lille said that after consultations with the education ministry and regional authorities it "has decided to cancel this student's planned registration at our establishment".

Some of the posts "come into direct contradiction with the values upheld by Sciences Po Lille, which fights against all forms of racism, antisemitism and discrimination, as well as against any type of incitement to hatred, against any population whatsoever," the university added in a post on X.

Accounts in the woman's name have been closed. 

 

 

Following the recommendation by French diplomats, the woman initially lived at the home of the university's director while she waited for permanent lodgings, Sciences Po said.

French ministers have demanded an investigation into the case.

"A Gazan student making antisemitic remarks has no place in France," said Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot, who added that he had ordered an internal inquiry.

"The screening carried out by the relevant departments of the ministries concerned clearly did not work," he added in a post on X.

Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau said he had demanded the closure of the "hateful" account and ordered local authorities to take legal action.

"Hamas propagandists have no place in our country," Retailleau said on X. 

 

https://www.barrons.com/news/french-university-rejects-gaza-student-over-hateful-online-posts-5bb0e7a8 

The Russian Collusion Hoax Gets Blown Wide Open

Townhall 

The hoax has been revealed. The Russian Collusion Hoax likely will go down as not just one of this nation’s biggest scandals, for the ones who paid attention and didn’t buy the claptrap spewed by legacy outlets, but one of the most significant intelligence operations in American history. And it was used against us. 

Every intelligence chief signed off on this plot, along with their deputies and associates. It was the willful manipulation and weaponization of intelligence to hamstring and destroy a duly elected president because Hillary Clinton didn’t win the presidency in November 2016. In the aftermath, it destroyed the media, our institutions, and countless families. And for what? Over an election.  

We’ve known for years that former President Barack Obama was involved, besides his inner circle. Now, with the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard releasing the documents, everything is coming together, and criminal referrals have been sent to the Justice Department.  

You know the story: the initial intelligence report did not comport with the Obama-Democrat whine fest that Moscow tilted the election for Trump. So, Obama ordered a new intelligence community assessment, where then-DNI James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former FBI Director James Comey all pushed to include the shoddy, unverifiable, and knowingly false Steele Dossier into the report. It’s the only file that backed up their delusional collusion antics. It was so bad that senior analysts decried its inclusion to no avail. At the CIA, the FBI, and even the Senate Intelligence Committee, all opposition was squashed. One analyst even tried to come forward to Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), saying he had evidence of Brennan manipulating the intelligence at the CIA. Warner never responded for obvious reasons.  

That report’s creation was ordered on December 9, 2016, along with the strategy of targeted leaks to create maximum chaos for the Trump team. We know Brennan’s source was some drunk ex-Russian embassy staffer with no standing. Nothing. It was a rumor, and Brennan treated him like some super vulnerable asset, despite everyone and their mother finding him with relative ease living in Stafford, Virginia. 

At the time, some might have said the manipulation of intelligence before the 2003 Iraq War was the nadir of IC’s reputation. This, however, is worse. It’s seditious conspiracy, and the media played a role, too, an institution that was never really smashed as they deserved in the fallout of this scandal.  

What’s worse is that the spooks who drafted the 2017 ICA that sparked the collusion hoax are reportedly still at the CIA. The general counsel for the National Security Agency worked on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report and is openly anti-Trump. We won the election, but these people didn’t go away.  

The Deep State can still plot against us, so how do we stop it? How can we stop the next one? It’s why what happens to Obama, Comey, Brennan, and Clapper is so critical. These men must be charged and arrested. They must be destroyed, as the damage they've caused is too much for any legal remedy to be symbolic. 

What they did borders on treason, and their punishment needs to make the urban professional, the career swamp creature, think twice before meddling with intelligence reports to serve their selfish means. 

Don't want to face severe consequences, then don't work to betray your country.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. The rest is noise. For now, let's focus on bringing these clowns to justice. We can discuss punishment later.

Experts call for investigation into $86 billion in Medicare Advantage 'ghost benefits'

 

By Tom Joyce | The Center Square contributor Jul 28, 2025 | The Center Square

(The Center Square) – As Congress debates how to rein in federal spending, some experts say aspects of Medicare Advantage should be on the chopping block, starting with $86 billion a year in taxpayer-funded supplemental benefits that often go unused or unverified.

The federal government pays Medicare Advantage plans rebate dollars to cover extra services, including dental, vision, hearing, and over-the-counter drugs. However, a 2024 study published by JAMA Network Open found that only $3.9 billion of that money went toward dental, vision and hearing benefits.

Meanwhile, the industry spent an estimated $16 billion on $1,000 “Flex Cards” for new enrollees – prepaid cash cards often used for groceries, utility bills and even cable TV. Critics say the cards are mostly a marketing gimmick and don’t improve health outcomes.

“Amazingly, Medicare plans aren't required to tell regulators how much they spend on medical and prescription drug claims,” health policy expert Mark Merritt said in a statement. “This is a recipe for ghost benefits that look good on paper but can’t be accessed due to red tape and high out-of-pocket costs.”

Medicare requires insurers to project how they will spend their rebates, but not to report how they spend them. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) doesn’t verify whether the benefits are used or delivered.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) flagged the issue in its June 2025 report to Congress.

It found a “fundamental lack of transparency” around how rebate dollars are spent and questioned whether these benefits improve outcomes or just boost insurance company profits.

Medicare Advantage plans also receive $40 billion this year in risk-adjusted payments and $12.7 billion in quality bonus payments. However, oversight is limited. A Wall Street Journal report found that $50 billion from 2018 to 2021 was paid based on diagnoses submitted by the plans themselves, not by doctors.

Plans are required to spend at least 85% of revenue on care and “quality improvements,” but CMS allows the $86 billion in supplemental rebates to count toward that number – even though most of it funds non-medical perks. That includes programs that restrict care, like prior authorization and AI-based claims denial systems.

Congress recently cut $9 billion through a rescissions measure – primarily foreign aid and public broadcasting money. The Medicare Advantage program alone gets nearly 10 times that in unverified perks.

Photo: Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Dr. Mehmet Oz (left) and Matthew Galeotti, head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, speak at a news conference on Monday, June 30, 2025.

U.S. Department of Justice livestream

🎭 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. 

Bombshell Study Reveals Real Reason Behind Surge in Homelessness, and It's Not What the Dems Tell You

RedState 

It’s a “housing crisis.” It’s because Republicans are evil and don’t care about the downtrodden. It’s because capitalism is cruel. It's because we don't throw enough money at the problem.

We’re talking about the homelessness crisis, and the Democrats who are in charge of many of the cities hardest hit by the devastation will blame almost anything other than their own failed policies. But according to a study from researchers at the University of Chicago and Dartmouth College—not exactly institutions known as conservative bastions—there’s another reason behind the startling rise in the homeless population, and it’s not what Gavin Newsom, JB Pritzker and the mainstream media are telling you.

The study was released in April, but I can’t remember CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, or any other liberal outlet talking about it. The paper, titled simply, “Asylum Seekers and the Rise in Homelessness,” is getting renewed attention, and the abstract pretty much tells you everything you need to know:

Data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) indicate an unprecedented 43 percent increase in the number of people residing in homeless shelters in the United States between 2022 and 2024, reversing the gradual decline over the preceding sixteen years. Three quarters of this rise was concentrated in four localities – New York City, Chicago, Massachusetts, and Denver – where large inflows of new immigrants seeking asylum were housed in emergency shelters. Using direct estimates from local government sources and indirect methods based on demographic changes, we estimate that asylum seekers accounted for about 60 percent of the two year rise in sheltered homelessness during this period, challenging media and policy narratives that primarily attribute this rise to local economic conditions and housing affordability.

Read that twice; it’s pretty stunning. It’s something that critics of Joe Biden’s “let them all in” border policies and progressive mayors’ “sanctuary city” madness have known instinctively for some time now, but to see the numbers is nonetheless bracing.

Note that the numbers the researchers provided above only describe the sheltered homeless. The number of homeless on the streets has also risen precipitously, as anyone who lives in a major city can tell you.

One of the researchers, the University of Chicago's Bruce Meyer, said, Trump’s border policies should help ease the disaster created by Democrats:

'Substantially more than half of the increase in homelessness comes from migration, rather than new individuals falling into poverty,' the University of Chicago's Bruce Meyer said.

'Federal immigration policy changes under the Trump administration that narrow pathways to asylum are likely to slow the growth of sheltered homelessness in the years ahead.'

Why haven’t you heard more about this study? Meyer thinks he knows:

Meyer said his paper, which partly backs President Donald Trump's border crackdown, was proving 'unpopular' in academic circles - a factor he believes might explain why it has been largely ignored by the mainstream media.

According to a count in 2024, more than 771,800 people are homeless in the U.S. on any given night, with the biggest numbers in New York and California—two sanctuary states with soft-on-crime laws and progressive governors.

Now we know why the numbers exploded. Thanks, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, thanks, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, thanks, former President Joe Biden and all your “progressive” brethren. You earned this. 

Nutty Professors Want All Humans Infected With Tick-Borne Red Meat Allergy

RedState 

Sometimes you run across something or someone that just drops your jaw in disbelief. Both were applicable today. I’ve seen plenty of nutty professors boldly go where no nut has dropped before — where a nut has pontificated and posited arguments that unmoored from reality — but today, a man named Blake Hereth has leapt to the top of my nutty professor list.  

Strap in, dear reader, you’re in for a roller coaster of professorial nuttiness.  

Blake Hereth has a PhD. He’s an assistant professor at Western Michigan University in the Department of Medical Ethics, Humanities, and Law. Before that, he worked at the University of Arkansas. 

Blake's pronouns are “they/them.” Respect his pronouns. 

During the Biden administration, and through a grant funded by the Air Force, he investigated the ethics of warfighter enhancement. Hereth has authored or co-authored multiple papers on what he’d describe as ethical imperatives. What are those imperatives? Dystopian nonsense.  

I’ll focus on two. The first was written during his tenure at the University of Arkansas. It was titled: 

“Here’s Not Looking at You, Kid: A New Defense of Anti-Natalism" 

Two quotes from that paper:  

Anti-natalism is the view that persons ought morally to refrain from procreation. We offer a new argument for a principled version of anti-natalism according to which it is always impermissible to procreate in the actual world since doing so will violate the right to physical security of future, created persons once those persons exist and have the right. First, we argue that procreators can be responsible for non-trivial harms that befall future persons even if they do not cause them and if the harms are temporally delayed, provided the harms are reasonably foreseeable by procreators. 

If persons procreate in spite of such knowledge, they share responsibility (and liability) in the outcome. We then raised and responded to several objections to our arguments, showing that none succeeds. 

In short, Hereth tells us that having children, any children, is bad. Very bad. If you do that irresponsible, unethical thing of having children, you are responsible for harming that person (just by bringing them into the world), and you, parent, are responsible for any and all harm/wrong that person commits during their lifetime. You're a parent? You are a bad person. So, mankind, don’t have children. Ever. 

As nutty as that may sound, his nutty conclusions in this year's offering will disgust you. His latest paper argues that a tick-borne illness called Alpha-gal, which causes people to have a violent allergic reaction to eating red meat, is a good thing. Although people have become violently ill eating red meat after being infected by the Lone Star tick, and sometimes they have ended up in the hospital, Hereth argues that that is just too bad. “Greater good” 

In a paper titled Beneficial Bloodsucking Hereth and his co-author write:  

Our main conclusion is that we should promote a particular tickborne syndrome: alpha-gal syndrome (AGS). AGS is caused by the allergen alpha-gal, which in humans causes an allergic reaction to eating mammalian meat and mammalian organs. People who have the allergy may have a variety of symptoms, including hives, gastrointestinal upset (e.g., vomiting and diarrhea), or anaphylaxis in severe cases. Often, these symptoms present 2-6 hours after ingestion of mammalian meat.

Assuming that tickborne AGS becomes sufficiently widespread and is not reversed, this will result in enormous changes to human behavior – changes that benefit billions of nonhuman animals whose red meat is no longer desired.

Assuming that eating meat is generally morally impermissible, acquiring AGS is likely to morally enhance a person’s behavior, as they are far less likely to eat (red) meat if they are allergic to it.

I read the paper and, yes, my mouth was agape most of the time. Hereth’s paper is a demand that humans be infected with Alpha-gal, that no “cure” be researched or developed because Alpha-gal isn't a “disease,” and if some people are harmed (sometimes severely), well, tough, humans, stop eating meat. Greater good or some theoretical nonsense that allows these ghouls to sleep at night. More from Beneficial Bloodsucking:

Herein, we have argued that AGS is a moral bioenhancer and that its promotion is morally obligatory. Among other things, that means that researchers have an obligation to develop the AGS-carrying capacity of ticks, and that means human agents are obligated to expose others to AGS (and possibly lone star ticks), not to prevent the spread of AGS or lone star ticks, and to undermine attempts to ‘cure’ AGS. Indeed, given that AGS is a moral bioenhancement with no significant negative effects on human health (so long as one avoids eating meat), it is not a disease and thus cannot be ‘cured.’ persons even if they do not cause them and if the harms are temporally delayed, provided the harms are reasonably foreseeable by procreators.

The final sentence wraps a bow around their nonsense:  

[I]f we relied entirely on consequentialism, one might object to our argument on deontological grounds. The Convergence Argument avoids that objection. 

What is the “Convergence Argument”? All premises point to a single conclusion. They spend 25 pages presenting a “We think eating red meat is bad” conclusion and dismissing the consequences of allergic sickness to a “tough” conclusion. Pain is ethical for the greater good. Here "they" are:

These guys are a couple of nutty profs. I’m thankful that my children all avoided teachers like these guys.

Pro Tip: People of Western Michigan avoid Crutchfield and Hereth. If you see them, run — they might have a tick to "show you."

Trump Reveals More Changes Coming to the White House - Cue Dem and Media Meltdown

RedState 

President Donald Trump revealed that more changes are coming to the White House, and we can hardly wait for the predictable meltdown that will ensue from Democrats and members of the media.

During his interview on the "Pod Force One" podcast with Miranda Devine, the president and host discussed some of the grand ballrooms of Europe, and Trump said it was well past time to have one built at the people's house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in Washington, D.C.

"In the White House, as you know, for 150 years, they've wanted to have a ballroom. They don't have a ballroom," Trump explained. "They have meeting rooms. They have those beautiful, you've seen, you've interviewed me in those rooms. But they have beautiful meeting rooms."

"But they've never had a ballroom," he added. "A ballroom, meaning someplace you can sit 6 or 700 people if the President of China or France, or the U.K., or [EU President] Ursula von der Leyen comes to town, you give them a big state dinner. We don't have a room like that. At the White House, they have to use a tent."

"And if it's raining, it's soaking wet, soggy, the area is a very low area, and all the water rushes to it. And it's a disaster," Trump continued. "So, I said, you know if I win this second time, I'm gonna build a ballroom. A beautiful ballroom for the White House. And they need that at the White House. They can't do the kinds of things they like to do in their big room. Which is a beautiful reception room, but not as a ballroom."

When pressed by the host on when construction could begin on this grand ballroom, the president said he's shooting for the work to get started in two to two-and-a-half months.

"And we'll have it completed in less than two years," Trump explained. "It's a very incredible structure. A lot of it's the interior work. It's going to be beautiful ... It will be a great tribute to the White House. It's going to be something."

Trump said while other presidents have talked about it, he's going to get it done. 

It follows another recent update at the White House, which was completed months after Trump's announcement in April about the installation of not one but two giant flagpoles on the White House complex, as RedState reported.

During an impromptu press briefing on Wednesday outside the White House, Trump spoke to reporters about his plans to dig holes for flag poles that will hold a giant American flag.

"We're putting up a beautiful, almost 100-foot-tall, American flag [poles] on this side and another one on the other side," Trump said as he pointed to the spaces on the North and South Lawn he surveyed with a crew for the placement of the poles.

"Two flags, top of the line," he added. "And they've needed flag poles for 200 years. It was something that I've often said, 'you know, they don't have a flag pole."

"So, we are putting one right where you saw us," Trump continued. "And we are putting another one on the other side on top of the mounds. It's gonna be two beautiful poles."

The project was completed in June at Trump's personal expense, and pictures and videos of the flags flying high next to the White House look terrific.

Hoo-boy, changes to the White House in the past have been met with gnashing of the teeth by leftist politicians and their talking heads in the media.

I mean, who could forget the meltdown those on the left had during President Trump's first term over First Lady Melania Trump's redo of the White House Rose Garden to make it more accessible, as previously reported?

At the time, we were inundated with hot-takes like a headline from The New York Times, "Marie Antoinette Would Be Proud." 

It was reposted by fashion magazine's Jennifer Wright, who wrote on X (formerly Twitter), "I'd say that overhauling your garden during a time of national unrest is a real Marie Antoinette move, but to my knowledge Marie Antoinette did not make the garden worse."

And the latest updates to the Rose Garden have them undone again.