Tuesday, September 9, 2025

Democrats Believe in Totalitarian Government


For all their screaming and hollering about “democracy,” the Democratic Party of today believes in totalitarian government. And I’m going to prove it in this article. Most rank-and-file members of the party are truly ignorant of this matter, but it is the logical implications of what they believe. 

Again, to quote Senator Tim Kaine’s recent statement on the source of human rights: “The notion that rights don't come from laws, and don't come from the government, but come from the Creator...That's what the Iranian government believes. So the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.”  This is a statement of totalitarian government. To Tim Kaine, the Declaration of Independence is “extremely troubling.”  No, Democratic Party ideology is what is ”extremely troubling”—not to mention very frightening because this ideology has been the source of hundreds of millions of innocent deaths in the past 100 years, and the tyrannizing, oppression, and enslavement of billions more. Yet, I seriously doubt that Tim Kaine understands the implications of the “our rights come from government” doctrine. At least, I hope he doesn’t. He’s evil, by definition—he’s a Democratic Senator. But if he truly understands what he said in the quote above, he’s not only evil, he’s a monster.

Thomas Jefferson, in the founding document of our nation (the “Declaration of Independence”) said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that their Creator endows them with certain unalienable Rights….”  Our rights come from our Creator, something Tim Kaine EXPLICITLY denied in his statement.  Thus, he EXPLICITLY denied the principles upon which America was founded.  We’ve known for a long time that Democrats don’t believe in the founding principles of America, but for one of them to come out and EXPLICITLY say so is almost astounding.  The sad thing is, most Democratic Party leaders agree with him, and most rank-and-file Democratic Party members probably don’t care enough to think it through and understand what it means.

Kaine said that our rights come from “laws and government” (in effect, the same thing, because it is government that makes the laws). It is a statement of totalitarian government. It is exactly what the Chinese Communists, and every other totalitarian government, believe. Let me demonstrate that.

America is supposed to have a “limited government.”  Kaine and Democrats might even SAY they believe that. But if the government gives us all our rights, then who limits the power of the government? Who tells the government what it is limited to, who tells the government what “rights” it can give us? Who limits the power of government? Well, Kaine would probably have to say that the people do, but who gives the people the right to limit the power of government? If he says the Constitution limits government, then I ask, who interprets the Constitution if not government? If our rights come from the government, then it is the government that gives the people (or the Constitution) the right to limit the powers of government! But if the government gives rights, then the government can take them away—any “right” a government grants by its fiat and mercy can be repealed. So, if the government gives the people the “right” to limit the power of government, then the government can take away the people's right to limit the power of government. There is thus no true limitation on the power of government. THAT is totalitarianism. THAT is what Tim Kaine argued for. THAT is what today’s Democratic Party believes.  

Kaine then tried to compare the Declaration of Independence with Iran—rights that come from a Creator is what the Iranian government believes. No, it is not. I would argue most vociferously that Jesus and Christianity teach freedom of religion, something Islamic Sharia law does not teach. America is not a theocracy like Iran is. Iran is theoretically ruled by Sharia law. Allah (not Jehovah, they are two VERY different gods) gives the law. That is not what our founding fathers set up. Iranian Sharia law is diametrically opposed to Christianity.  Jesus never forced anybody to believe in him. He always gave people a choice, and that's what the American government does. To say that American rights are like Iranian rights is as false, as deceptive, as big a lie as it can possibly be, because Iran is a theocracy and Jesus NEVER taught that.

But Kaine is trying to compare our Founders’ idea of rights coming from a Creator with the barbicans in Iran because Kaine wants the government to have all power. He wants the government, not the Judeo-Christian God, to be the source of Americans’ rights. Kaine and the Democratic Party want a totalitarian government. Period.

According to our Founders, government, in the American system, is designed to protect our God-given rights. That is NOT the purpose of government in the Iranian system (or Democrats’). The government of Iran ultimately defines what law is in that country, and thus, in Iran, too, the government is the source of the people’s rights. That government is totalitarian. Tim Kaine has no clue what he is talking about.

 But then, what Kaine wants to do is what Democrats have been trying to do for a long time now—undermine the principles our Founding Fathers established America upon so that they can morph America into a Chinese/Marxist-style totalitarian government.

To our Founding Fathers, to those who believe in our founding principles, our rights come from God. But America is not a totalitarian theocracy. God tells people what they should do. And He tells them what will happen if they don't—they will not inherit the kingdom of God.  But Jesus (unlike Allah) never forces anyone to obey him. There is no virtue in forced obedience.

It is the Democratic Party, not Christians, who want to force Americans into obedience to a higher power. And to Democrats, that higher power is…government. Totalitarian government.



at

Entertainment and politics thread for Sept 9

 


Does the world ever stop being confusing, or is it always just completely chaotic?

at

No Lives Matter (Unless Democrats Can Exploit Them)


George Floyd was a saint, probably better than you could ever even imagine being, a wonderful father, and was murdered by police because he was black. OK, none of that is true. George Floyd was a junkie criminal who died of a drug overdose in police custody, and the best thing he ever did for his daughter was live far away from her so she didn’t have to see her addict, criminal father steal her toys to sell for drugs. Which version do you believe says everything about your politics? If it’s the latter, you’re likely a conservative; if it’s the former, you’re probably an idiot. 

On whichever side you fall, the reality is that Floyd’s death was a political opportunity of a generation for the Democrats. If you cut out the drugs and the passing off of counterfeit money, the violence, and all the other crimes, you have a wonderful man there. Of course, George was not a wonderful man; he was a bad one who died because he took too many drugs and didn’t tell the police who were arresting him that he had ingested them. It’s pretty simple.

Now he’s a mural, an abstract idea where Democrats project only good thoughts and ideals onto, ignoring the reality that they’d call the police themselves if they’d seen him walking down the street in their neighborhood. For all the “Black Lives Matter” talk, if any of those people raising money or virtue signaling off his memory had given a single damn about him while he had a life to matter, he likely wouldn’t have died of an overdose.

Hell, if any of those liberals cared beyond Floyd being a weapon, he may well have been a productive member of society who could live with, or at least near, his daughter. 

Iryna Zarutska was a productive member of society, as much as any 23-year-old can be. If a junkie’s life, after decades of bad, deliberate choices, mattered, Iryna’s life mattered too. Even more. 

But you aren’t allowed to say that. Left-wing media outlets lined up staff to tattoo George Floyd’s likeness on their lower backs, but couldn’t bring themselves to mention Zarutska because of her skin color. While attractive white girls being murdered usually lead to wall-to-wall coverage by the media, if the perpetrator is black, it doesn’t rate at all. It’s not that it doesn’t fit the liberal narrative; it’s that it is the exact opposite of the narrative. 

The reality is it is far more common for people of any color to be victims of crime by people who look like they do. But when you move outside that truth, the data becomes wildly inconvenient for Democrats and the narrative of victimhood and racism they pretend is real life. Anything that reflects that reality is ignored; it has to be.

Euphemisms are tossed around like “teens” to describe a mob beating people or looting, but don’t ever expect to solve a problem if you can’t explain it. Now, news stories are omitting any description of suspects, making informing the public to be on the lookout for “a human” the new norm. What could go wrong?

You only let things get to this point if sane, rational actions are counter to your best interests, and they are to Democrats. There is no circumstance under which truth or reality favors Democrats. 

Illinois Governor Fat Bastard, JB Pritzker, is all over liberal networks (too scared to talk to the other half of the country) insisting “crime is worse in red states!” He doesn’t have to worry about it being pointed out that the states of Tennessee and Missouri are, in fact, red, but Memphis and St. Louis, for example, are deep blue and have been run for the entirety of the walking cholesterol Governor’s life by members of his own party. 

Facts don’t matter to the left any more than the lives of any configuration of human beings do.

The whole “Black Lives Matter” was a brilliant marketing scheme – a real estate play that paid off well for anyone lucky enough to suckle at the teat of corporate America. The milk is gone, but mentality is not. Now, however, the emperor has no clothes – people not only aren’t falling for it anymore, they aren’t interested in the concept. Black Chicagoans are sick of attending funerals that Democrat politicians use as sets for campaign speeches. And all Americans can look at the murder of a white girl as the horror it is, while being sickened by the idea that a mentally defective monster with a violent arrest record longer than Pritzker’s belt was on the streets to do it.

We need a new accountability in America, where politicians feel the wrath of their poisonous policy prescriptions and judges face consequences for their political rulings. There is a large enough body of evidence to show these are not unintended consequences, but the end and obvious result of deliberate actions with indifference toward the outcomes. Voters need to be protected not only from rabid thugs and mentally defective sociopaths, but from the political and prosecutorial class that empowers them. 



at

Don’t UK the USA


Woe to the British, particularly the British who are actually British and are today being forced by their ruling class to be unwilling cattle subject to the unrestrained exploitation, looting, and raping of the Third World barbarians their betters imported. There’s a lot of raping going on, and the real problem seems to be that normal British people don’t want their daughters raped. But their rulers do; it’s reasonable to assume that you want the foreseeable consequences of your actions. Recently, when one girl pulled a knife on some scumbag who was trying to molest her, someone got arrested. You’re not going to be surprised to find that it was the girl who was defending herself and her sister. Britain is now a classic anarchy-tyranny, where the catspaws of the ruling class are free to pillage and abuse while the full weight of the once legitimate government comes down on those who would protest or resist. Raise the flag of your own country? That’s a hate crime but fly high the pride and Palestinian banners.

Don’t get your hopes up about the British people casting off their chains anytime soon, because I’m sorry to say it’s not going to happen. And there are a lot of reasons for it, reasons we should understand here in America to avoid the UK’s sorry fate of tumbling down the slippery slope into nanny state fascism with sensible shoes, crushing its subjects’ faces forever.

I use the term “subjects” because that’s what they are, not citizens, not men. A subject is subject to the will of others. A citizen is subject to his own will while also participating as an equal member of the polity. In Britain, the idea of being a subject is firmly ingrained because it is a monarchy, even though the monarch is a neutered, doddering buffoon who was the shame of his hard-as-nails mother. But again, the British accept this. They don’t have to be a monarchy. They could be a republic, but they don’t want to be for whatever reason. The idea of royalty is remarkably silly, but you need to understand that there are actually people out there who yearn to be ruled, who want to be subjects. Being a citizen is hard. It requires many things of you. But being a subject is easy. It requires only your obedience.

Don’t even get me started on how these geeks presume to legislate what Americans can and can’t say online. We won’t take it, but their own people seem cool with it. They shouldn’t be.

Now, it’s easy to say – and accurate to say – there’s not going to be any British civil war because the British were dumb enough to give up their guns. You should never give up your guns. You cannot be a citizen if you don’t have guns. If the citizens don’t have the means to commit violence in the defense of life and liberty, then they are mere subjects. The British gave up their guns in exchange for security. Of course, they have none. And now that their government – the entire government, including the alleged Conservative Party – has turned openly against them, they have no real remedy. In America, we still have a remedy, should it become necessary. I wrote about it in detail in my new novel, American Apocalypse: The Second American Civil War. It is the indisputable right of a citizenry to remove an oppressive government that chronically, systemically, and irrevocably violates the civil rights endowed in us by our Creator (Yeah, rights come from God, Tim Kaine). That’s as true today as it was in 1776, when the British tried that crap over here and we shot them. Remember, the proper unit of measurement of freedom is the caliber. I will also accept millimeters, as in 5.56, 7.62, 9, and 10, as well as gauge, as in 12.

But of course, as my novel explains, securing freedom from a dictatorship is not as simple as just going to your gun safe(s) and choosing one of your many, many freedom sticks. Having guns is just the threshold qualification for proactively securing your freedom. You also need leaders. And that’s where we get to the class dynamics of Britain. The lower classes, the workers, the very Brits the British ruling class holds in such contempt, have never led themselves. They were always led by some rich toff who went to Oxford. This noblesse oblige vibe meant that the ruling class, while holding the dirty peasants in condescending contempt, also attempted to take care of them. And the posh boys stood with them when things got stabby; the Zulus at Isandlwana cut down highfalutin’ officers and rank-and-file alike, and nobody ran.

But now the ruling class has decided to let its contempt flag fly. It hates its own people, and that’s a uniparty party thing. Labor, Conservative, it doesn’t matter. Those are just labels. There’s one party, the uniparty, and they all agree on everything from the climate hoax to the need to import endless foreigners to the need to suppress the voices of the peasants. They went to the same schools, eat at the same clubs, and engage in the same bizarre kinks.

The peasants should be revolting, but there’s no one to lead them. If a nail rises up, it gets pounded down. Open your mouth and the English Gestapo is there. Giant rape gang that molests hundreds of girls for years? Now, that’s not interesting. But there’s a guy in Brighton who said that maybe we should turn off the tap of Third World invaders. Better get the bobbies rolling; it’s not going to be a problem getting a conviction when all the judges all agree on the desperate need to suppress any alternative viewpoints as subversive. The dual-track justice system, where normal Brits are punished mercilessly while foreign barbarians are free to indulge in their barbarity, will help keep those in power in power.

And the British people will go along with it, because this is how these things go. When you capture the institutions, gut them, and wear them as a skin suit, you get respect for a while. This isn’t the free Great Britain of Margaret Thatcher or Winston Churchill. This is a scummy little dictatorship wearing what was once a legitimate government as a pelt.

The working-class British have the numbers, but they lack organization. And it’s not clear that they have the willingness to make the sacrifices required to be free once again. They’d have to get off their couches, turn off the telly, skip the Eurovision Song Contest, and risk economic deprivation, cultural isolation, and potentially prison. Moreover, if it gets serious and they become a real danger to the regime, look for the ruling class to turn the military on them and kill its way to power forever. You don’t think it would ever come to that? Have you not been watching? Do you not understand how these Western leftists hate their own people?

America could go this way, but there are challenges our ruling class faces that the inbred twits of Old Blighty don’t. Yes, we have guns. Yes, we have the mindset that we’re citizens and that we don’t default to somebody simply because he’s a pale hemophiliac with a decaying castle and a legacy of 30 generations of Cambridge graduates who styles himself Dimsdale Poofknocker-Ween VII, Arch-Baron of Bumtouch-on-the-Grumpy.

There are also geographic factors. America is big enough that it incorporates significantly different regions, some of which are much more ornery than others. We patriots have the presidency now, but even if we didn’t, federalism means there are complete state governments that align with freedom, providing a safe haven for liberty. And on a practical matter, it would be hard to conduct systemic, comprehensive oppression because we have so many different law enforcement agencies, as opposed to effectively just one in Britain. Yeah, please go out and tell the sheriff in some Texas Hill Country county that he’s got to collect up everybody’s AR-15s and see how that goes for you. He doesn’t work for DC; he works for the people he grew up with and lives with. Oh, and having a written constitution helps. Britain’s constitution appears to be whatever the ruling class wants it to be at a given moment. Think of Calvinball, except Brit Calvin has bad teeth and likes to tie up Hobbes.

Now, with Britain becoming something new and much, much worse, we Americans need to ask ourselves whether we want to maintain our special relationship. It worked out very well in the past when the UK had a real military and could actually contribute something to the defense of the West. But now, we need to ask ourselves a question. What’s in it for us? Why is the UK 2.0 worthy of a special relationship with us if its own people can’t speak or live freely, if its ruling class is destroying the country, and if no child is safe? I don’t want to be in a special relationship with the nation-state equivalent of the Lincoln Project.

It’s sad, but what happens to Britain is not up to us. It’s up to the British. But what is up to us is what we do here in our own country. And what we must do now is double down on being citizens instead of subjects. Speak freely and forthrightly. Demand every single right to which you were endowed by our Creator. Reject the dual-track justice system and anarcho-tyranny that the Democrats would impose. But, most of all, make sure you have laid the foundation requirement for freedom – buy guns and ammunition.

Follow Kurt on Twitter @KurtSchlichter and order Kurt Schlichter’s action-packed new novel, American Apocalypse: The Second American Civil War out now! Get Kurt Schlichter and Irina Moises’s noir fantasy novel, Lost Angeles: Silver Bullets On The Sunset Strip! Also, check out Kurt’s Kelly Turnbull People’s Republic series of conservative action novels.

Join the fight for America by enlisting in Townhall VIP right now. You get access to a bunch of great stuff, not the least of which is my extra Wednesday column, my weekly Stream of Kurtiousness videos every Friday, and his Unredacted podcast every Monday! Plus, some stuff from Larry O’Connor – and more!



at

🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

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. 


at

RNC Asks Justice Department To Investigate Maine’s Trump-Hating Secretary Of State


The complaint accuses Shenna Bellows of violating the National Voter Registration Act by failing to make public voter roll records.



The Republican National Committee is asking the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, days after video showed the Trump-hating leftist acknowledging that there are surely “some” noncitizens on the state’s dirty voter rolls. 

According to documents exclusively obtained by The Federalist, RNC legal staff has sent a formal complaint to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Michael Gates, alleging Bellows has violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). 

The Democrat who attempted to boot then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump off Maine’s 2024 GOP primary ballot has effectively extended her middle finger to the RNC’s requests to make public “all records” pertaining to Maine’s voter list maintenance system, the complaint says. Bellows has apparently done the same to the DOJ when they requested voter data, telling the Trump administration to “jump into the Gulf of Maine.” 

Five months after the RNC made its initial records request, Bellows finally agreed to produce “off-the-shelf records, such as policies, procedures, and training manuals” about Maine’s voter list maintenance systems, the complaint states. But the secretary of state has “refused to indicate whether she is willing to produce any further records, including concrete data that would demonstrate whether Maine is actually implementing these policies as written.”

“Furthermore, the limited information provided by Secretary Bellows’ office suggests that Maine is failing to maintain its voter list with any regularity,” wrote Mandy Lester, chief counsel for the Republican National Committee. “Therefore, we respectfully request that the Department of Justice investigate Maine’s compliance with the NVRA’s ‘all records’ requirement and its list maintenance obligations.” 

The concern is certainly merited. 

‘Some Isolated Instances’

As The Federalist reported last week, in video footage pushed out by Libs of TikTok, Bellows admits that there are likely foreign nationals on the Pine Tree State’s registered voter list. 

“I’m sure there are, um, in some isolated instances, some noncitizens may be on the rolls,” the elections official said in a video clip.

Bellows, like other liberal election officials and so-called voter-rights activists, has long claimed that worries about noncitizens on state voter rolls are just a ruse by Trump and Republicans to erode faith in elections. Bellows’ office did not return The Federalist’s request for comment seeking an estimate of how many noncitizens populate Maine’s voter list. 

The RNC, which has blasted Bellows for her resistance campaign against government transparency in furtherance of her run for governor, asserts the secretary of state made little effort to comply with its open records request — or the public disclosure terms of the NVRA. In an Aug. 4 letter, a representative from Bellows’ office wrote that she would be able to respond to the RNC’s request within “36 to 48 months,” the complaint details. All the RNC had to do was fork over $23,000 for the requested records. And the secretary’s office would not fill at least three of the RNC’s requests because state elections officials had conducted their “last address mailing confirmation in June of 2022” — more than three years ago. 

“After contacting the [SoS office] representative to discuss the matter, she indicated that Secretary Bellows’ office would provide information responsive to one of our sixteen requests. That request, Request No. 1, covers the most basic off-the-shelf policies and procedures, which should require no more than a couple of hours to compile,” Lester wrote.  

‘Treats Transparency Like It’s a Threat’

As all state election officials should fully understand, the NVRA requires the public inspection of “all records” tied to ensuring voter rolls are current and accurate. The RNC argues Bellows’ truculence, including the excessive cost and timeline to release the records, “are intentionally prohibitive and contravene the NVRA’s clear commitment toward transparent government and public accountability.” 

Last year, the Public Interest Legal Foundation won a landmark victory “for transparency and clean elections” when the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Maine’s voter rolls are bound by public records provisions under the National Voter Registration Act. 

“[W]hether voter registration rolls are accurate and current cannot be determined without inspecting the Voter File … In other words, the evaluation of voter registration rolls would be impossible if the results of Maine’s voter list registration and maintenance activities were not subject to public disclosure,” the federal court opinion states. 

It would seem Bellows is doubling down on her closed-government games, even after the Public Interest Legal Foundation alerted the office to more than 18,000 deceased residents, almost 1,500 same-address duplicate or triplicate registrations, and 900-plus registrants registered in other states on Maine’s voter list. 

J. Christian Adams, president of the election-integrity watchdog, said unfortunately, Maine voters are stuck with Bellows, “who treats transparency like it’s a threat and dirty voter rolls like they’re a feature.”

“PILF has been litigating against her for years, eventually beating her twice in Federal court, forcing her to turn over voter rolls and a large attorney fee award,” Adams told The Federalist in an email response. “Elections aren’t a game of hide-and-seek, but you’d never know that in Augusta.”

‘Immediate Federal Investigation’

The DOJ is quite familiar with Bellows’ work. Earlier this summer, the department’s Civil Rights Division asked several states, including Maine, to provide information on their election processes and voter registration data. Bellows declared the DOJ’s request unconstitutional, as noted in the leftist Maine Morning Star. That’s the epitome of hypocrisy after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down efforts like Bellows’ to disqualify Trump from the 2024 primary ballot on a twisted interpretation of the Constitution. 

“My answer to the DOJ is, ‘Go jump in the Gulf of Maine,’” Bellows told the outlet in late July.  

Given Bellows’ “explicit admissions” and a lack of assurances that Maine’s Secretary of State’s office is complying with the NVRA, the RNC believes it’s likely Maine is “failing to conduct reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity of its voter lists,” the complaint warns. 

“The RNC believes that Secretary Bellows’ actions justify an immediate federal investigation within the Department of Justice’s statutory authority,” Lester concluded. 

Bellows’ office did not immediately respond to the Federalist’s phone calls or texts about the allegations in the RNC complaint. The secretary’s spokeswoman was expected to be out of the office on Tuesday attending the ‘Disinformation Summit: Gathering Insights & Understanding Impact,'” with “limited access to email,” according to an automatic response. The event features some of the biggest leftist activists Maine has to offer.



at

New Postal Rule Is An Admission That Mail Voting Is A Mess


This problems with postmarks are more reason we should limit voting by mail to absentee voting with an excuse.



The United States Postal Service has announced a proposed new section to its mailing standards that would have a major impact on the return of mail-in ballots, as it would shift the responsibility to the voter to confirm the exact receival date by the postal service.

USPS realizes that with their new mail processing system, the postmark is no longer proof of the date that it received a piece of mail. Their solution is to make the customer — in the case of ballots the voter — responsible for confirming the receipt date of their piece of mail. It will be up to the voter to obtain proof of date of receipt, or without it, a ballot may not be counted.

“While the presence of a postmark on a mailpiece confirms that the postal service was in possession of the mailpiece on the date of the postmark’s inscription, the postmark date does not inherently or necessarily align with the date on which USPS first accepted possession of a mailpiece,” the proposal notes.

Voters can confirm the exact date that the postal service first accepted possession of their ballot in various ways. The customer can hand the ballot or mail to a postal clerk at the post office and request a manual postmark, purchase a “Certificate of Mailing,” or pay extra for registered or certified mail.

The postal service’s postmark has been considered the mail date for payments by mail, filing taxes, and other legal documents and, in 19 states and Washington, D.C., the mail date for mail-in ballots that are to be mailed by Election Day.

Recent Changes to Mail Processing System

Now, USPS is making a distinction between the postmark and what they are calling the “First Accepted Possession” of a piece of mail. The postmark only confirms that the postal service had possession of the mail on that date, not that it received the mail on that date.

This proposal is necessitated by the implementation of USPS’s mail stream restructuring, Delivering for America, that was introduced in 2021. Under this system, a piece of mail may have entered the mail stream several days before the postmark is applied. All mail is now being processed at regional postal facilities, where the postmark is applied by machines — not at local post offices. Mail can be held at the local post office or the regional postal facility for a number of days. This delay is exacerbated by weekends, holidays, and rural areas that are far from a regional postal facility.

Voters’ New Responsibility

Delivering for America has been a disaster, as previously reported in The Federalist. Since it began, every USPS Inspector General report about the regional processing facilities, most recently the St. Louis region, has been extremely critical, with reporting about delayed and mishandled mail and other issues.

President Donald Trump understands the vulnerabilities in voting by mail and recognizes the potential for election fraud. He issued Executive Order 14248 addressing these concerns and has made recent comments going even further, calling for the elimination of voting by mail. Eliminating, or drastically limiting voting by mail, and requiring that all ballots be received by Election Day, as he has suggested, would make USPS’s proposal about the postmark irrelevant.

The Postal Service has become the largest precinct in our elections and their system is not set up to handle the burden of receiving and delivering millions of ballots.

This issue with postmarks is just one more reason why we should limit voting by mail to absentee voting with an excuse. Additionally, the 20 states that use the postmark by Election Day to count a ballot should join the other 28 states that require ballots to be received by Election Day, regardless of the postmark.



at

Deporting Illegal Immigrants Is Not Enough


Importing culturally foreign, economically dependent people is destroying the American way of life.



WASHINGTON, D.C. — Illegal immigration might be the single strongest issue holding the conservative movement together right now. Everyone wants illegals gone, and no one cares if the migrants have committed other crimes or not — this is about the restoration of American culture for Americans to enjoy.

National Conservatism (NatCon) had its fifth annual conference in Washington, D.C., this week, where speakers addressed a variety of issues like where the right should be headed on things like gay “marriage,” what America’s relationship with Israel should look like, the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, education, and so on.

But over the course of the three-day event, immigration seemed to be brought up at every turn. Multiple panels and speakers addressed the issue, and the message was loud and clear:

Getting rid of illegals is not enough.

Border czar Tom Homan gave an update on some of the numbers, telling attendees that Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection have overseen nearly 400,000 deportations so far. “Just wait and see” the kinds of numbers the agencies can do with 10,000 more Homeland Security agents coming on board, Homan added. He also said that the average per-day gotaways at the border have gone from 1,800 during the Biden administration to 16 on the day prior to his speech, while the “historic” amount of death and sex, drug, and human trafficking supported by the Biden regime had diminished significantly.

Various speakers made absolutely clear the damage that has been done to the country through immigration writ large. Americans have long hated illegal immigration, but many have now woken up to the generational damage both legal and illegal immigration it have caused. Corporate pressure on compliant politicians has led to untold numbers of third-worlders with unrecognizable, inferior cultures fundamentally untethering Americans from their homeland.

That is why discussion of the H1-B visa program blew up in December and January during the Trump transition. Elon Musk crashed out, essentially claiming every call center jockey is the next Einstein, and Trump weighed in in support of the notoriously abused program. The Trump administration is also in the process of defending an Obama-era rule that allows the spouses of H-1B recipients to receive work permits — despite having zero approval from Congress.

But Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was correct when he said: “The main function of the H-1B visa program is not to hire ‘the best and the brightest,’ but rather to replace good-paying American jobs with low-wage indentured servants from abroad.”

An important theme of NatCon was that legal immigration needs to be dramatically lowered and disincentivized. Moreover, allowing more than half a million Chinese into the country with student visas, toying with the idea of mass amnesty, and requiring a measly 1 percent remittances tax on physical money or checks is just not going to cut it.

The U.S. government needs to simultaneously focus on removing the millions of illegals from our country, while also cycling out the legal migrants, including visa holders, those here on often bogus claims of asylum or refugee status, and perhaps implementing a selective denaturalization process.

Electoral power was a particular focus of Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who noted the “disproportionate favoritism of electoral power” for states like California, New York, and other “sanctuary states” whose congressional apportionment is boosted by the counting of illegals — each one of whom disenfranchises an American.

Uthmeier said that although illegals are not supposed to be able to vote (the evidence says they do), they are effectively given franchise by being counted in the census for purposes of congressional apportionment. He estimated that if they were not counted, there is the potential for 20-30 congressional seats to move around, stripping many from places like California and New York, where illegals are a larger portion of the population. Apportionment is also a deciding factor in how federal funding is distributed.

The issue has been a focus of the Trump administration, which has called for a new census to ascertain how many actual Americans are in the states to count for apportionment.

Pleas from leftists about “compassion” and insistence from establishment Republicans that corporate revenue — upheld in many ways by the slave wages of illegal and legal immigration — is more important than the flourishing of Americans are not passable anymore.

“How did all of these Western governments simultaneously decide to commit suicide? Why would we, out of nowhere, import lots of people — who we are probably going to have to pay for — who aren’t part of our culture and [will] ultimately make demands in our society?”  author and Blaze Media host Auron MacIntyre asked at the conference.

MacIntyre explained the social dynamic of any society held together by traditions and community: The institutions that people who share a common heritage build exist for those people to thrive and give them leverage — what MacIntyre called an “opposing sphere of influence” — against government power and so-called “elite” forces that serve to benefit most from the undermining of community.

“The religion and folkways of these communities are established by generation after generation practicing them as if they are simply part of the rhythms of life. The beliefs are transcendent, delivering authority from forces that no earthly power can produce,” he said. “These communities build institutions to perpetuate their way of life and care for the well-being of their members. … They preserve its culture, and they aid members who require assistance.”

Aiding members of the community who require assistance is what welfare systems should be for. But as Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, noted in his discussion, the U.S. has not made a distinction between “the deserving versus the undeserving poor.” He added that the “implicit rationale of a welfare system” is that “we have a responsibility to our fellow countrymen that is different and greater than we have to foreigners.”

But 54 percent of immigrant households in America are on at least one welfare program, Krikorian said. That number takes into account all legal and illegal immigrants, including naturalized citizens.

According to Krikorian, however, 59 percent of illegal immigrant households use some form of welfare, often through their children, who have likely been given citizenship under the false understanding of “birthright citizenship.”

The welfare use rate is extraordinarily high for Americans, too (about 40 percent), but, “as alarming as that is, these are our people,” Krikorian said, so at the very least it does not violate the basic principle of obligation to fellow countrymen.

Why are we going to such lengths to subsidize apparently unproductive immigrants in American society?

“In order to gain more power, the ruling class must find a way to dissolve all opposing spheres of sovereignty, including those that are built by middle-class communities,” MacIntyre said. “To achieve this goal, the ruling class has to ally itself with a lower dependent class that can be used to unseat the entrenched kulaks [those who built the cultural institutions].

By the ruling class’s calculation, it can kill two birds with one stone. Importing culturally unrecognizable, economically dependent people produces a large body of replacement voters who can be politically manipulated because of their dependency, while providing cheap labor for a class that can afford nannies and landscapers. In the process, members of the middle class drop into the lower class, making them dependent as well, thereby destroying the cultural institutions they have built as a bulwark against government power.

MacIntyre said that a domestic class of dependents can sometimes be used, but that it “really less than ideal” because they still come from “the same folkways and traditions” of the middle class. Importing class conflict is a quicker, more efficient way of destroying a society in order to increase power.

“Bringing in … foreign underclasses is far more reliable because they have zero connection to the land or its traditions, and are more willing to turn against those that are already residing there,” he said. “They often don’t speak the language and tend to require a level of state welfare. It’s not just that the immigrant class is not motivated to expose the expansion of the state. They actually actively require the growth of the state in order to succeed.”

Not importing these kinds of dependent people used to be the norm of American immigration policy dating back prior to the founding.

As Krikorian explained, a 1645 Massachusetts policy blocked people who were likely to be dependent on welfare once they arrived. A 1691 New York law is another example. Eventually, all colonies did the same, and after the American Revolution, all states followed suit.

In 1882, the federal government passed a law that excluded any immigrant “unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a [public] charge.”

But the Clinton administration took the “public charge” rule and basically made it nonexistent, because an immigrant is not considered a “public charge” on society unless the cost is in cash or if the individual is in a long-term care facility, Krikorian said. If an immigrant lives in public housing, uses food stamps, is on Medicare, or has children receiving free or reduced-cost school lunches, he is not considered to be on welfare.

That rule remains in effect to this day, because an attempt to change it during the first Trump administration was shot down by a judge. Krikorian said his understanding is that the Trump administration is going to try to change it again.

A lot of politicians like to float the idea that keeping immigrants off welfare might get the job done, but Krikorian said plans like that are “a shiny object, a distraction used by libertarians and corporate promoters of mass immigration, who don’t want the underlying policy of mass immigration to be questioned, but want people to talk about what really is kind of a side issue.”

Krikorian told The Federalist after his discussion that we would not even have to talk about immigrant welfare if the United States’ policy were simply to shut off the migration spigot and stop importing these people in the first place.

But, as MacIntyre argued, importing these people for the purpose of class conflict is part of the plan. The immigrants are brought in, the middle class is blamed for the economic inequality, and they are forced to give up the cultural and economic wealth they have been building for generations.

The “natural barrier” of the institutions the middle class built against the expansion of the state is destroyed as the middle class itself becomes a poorer dependent class, and their “existence becomes more unstable.” Then, when the institutions are destroyed, “virtue quickly starts to fade.”

“The charities are exploited, the common areas are defiled, and those who maintain them see no reason to continue the effort, because they don’t recognize the people who they are now sharing the country with,” he added.



at

Children’s Book Pushes False Jan. 6 Narrative, Blames Trump for Deaths That Didn’t Happen


A new children’s book titledWhat Is a Presidential Election? by Douglas Yacka is drawing sharp criticism from parents and concerned citizens after it falsely claims that President Donald Trump was directly responsible for the events of January 6th, going as far as suggesting that police officers died as a result.

This is not just misleading—it’s flat-out false. Despite years of media spin, no police officers were killed during the events of January 6th. Even the Washington D.C. medical examiner confirmed that Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes—specifically two strokes—a full day later, not as a result of anything that happened during the protest. Yet the narrative pushed in this book carelessly parrots the debunked talking points the Left has been recycling since 2021. 


And let’s not forget that President Trump explicitly called for peace that day. He posted a video message urging supporters to remain calm, go home, and respect law enforcement. But that’s conveniently left out in this so-called educational book, which is being marketed to young children.

The Democratic Party's plan is clear: they want to plant a political narrative early. Frame Trump as a dangerous figure and erase facts that don’t align with the Left’s agenda. And do it in classrooms and libraries where young minds are the most impressionable and the least equipped to challenge what they’re being told.

It’s one thing for partisan pundits to twist reality on cable news. It’s something else entirely when that same dishonesty is repackaged into children’s literature under the guise of "civic education." Parents should be outraged, and they have every right to push back.




at