Tuesday, November 11, 2025

Trump Is a Macro President in a Micro World


Tuesday’s elections were another reminder that Donald Trump thinks big while voters think small. Call it macro versus micro.

Trump negotiates peace in the Middle East and wields tariffs against China; most Americans negotiate with the grocery store clerk and worry about rent. The disconnect helps explain why Republicans keep losing ‘potentially’ winnable races. 

I say ‘potential’ because the big elections were in solid blue cities and states where the chances of a Republican victory were minuscule. 

Republicans, at least the MAGA wing, focus on the big picture -- restoring America’s global strength and national sovereignty. Democrats, by contrast, concentrate on the details of daily life, selling themselves as protectors of entitlements, abortion rights, and government benefits. Most voters, struggling with the cost of living, tune out lofty talk about tariffs or foreign policy and focus on their wallets.

The GOP establishment isn’t helping.

Instead of advancing policy, it obsesses over social-media squabbles like how Erica Kirk and J.D. Vance hugged each other at the memorial service, what Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes discussed, or which influencer has turned against Candace Owens. While the base is ready for a revolution, the leadership seems stuck on gossip.

This week’s results made that clear. New York City elected a self-described proud “Democrat socialist” to lead the city. Blue states like New York, New Jersey, and Virginia elected or re-elected Democrats. California’s redistricting plan will likely erase what’s left of its Republican delegation. 

None of this should shock anyone, as weak candidates in deep-blue states rarely win. But the down-ballot story tells more: voters approved higher taxes and new spending to fund a growing welfare state, even as cities crumble under crime and addiction.

Take Denver.

Voters there banned flavored tobacco after billionaire Michael Bloomberg spent $5 million promoting the measure.

Meanwhile, fentanyl and tranq addicts roam the streets, defecate on sidewalks, and make downtown unlivable. The priorities of the political class, and many voters, are completely upside down.

Trump, meanwhile, operates on a different level. He brokers peace deals where decades of diplomats failed.

He pressures China with tariffs that protect American industry.

He puts America first on the global stage.

Yet to many voters, those triumphs feel abstract. When you’re living paycheck to paycheck, facing $6 milk and $1,000 rent hikes, peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan is irrelevant.

Trump wasn’t on the ballot this week, but his movement was. And the GOP, under his nominal leadership, too often looks like the party of inertia -- talking about draining the swamp while the swamp thrives.

Despite Trump’s famous refrain, “We caught them all,” no one of consequence has been caught. 

A few of the spygate players and mortgage fraudsters have been indicted but lawfare judges are slow rolling their trials or throwing them lifelines. The odds of conviction and any type of reckoning are slim. The DOJ and FBI remain intact, the same bureaucrats in charge, the same double standard at play. Justice delayed has become justice denied.

Even with both houses of Congress in Republican hands, few of Trump’s executive orders have been codified into law, leaving them vulnerable to immediate reversal under the next Democratic president. The “deep state” endures because the GOP refuses to use its power as aggressively as Democrats would in their place.

Remember how ruthless Democrats were during the Biden administration, weaponizing government agencies against Republicans and arresting political opponents.

I am not advocating that Republicans do the same, but Republicans bring knives to the fight while Democrats bring machine guns, with predictable results.

Consider the current government shutdown. Democrats are exploiting it to damage Republicans. Voters who lose food stamps or face higher insurance premiums don’t care about congressional procedure. They care about surviving.

Republicans could end the standoff by voting to end the Senate filibuster, a rule Democrats would discard in a heartbeat if it blocked their agenda. Instead, Republicans cling to “principle” while Democrats seize power.

Filibuster is an old Dutch word for ‘pirate,’ fitting since Democrats are hijacking the will of the American voters who elected a GOP Congress. The president is twisting the arms of GOP Senators to end the filibuster, but news reports suggest that is not likely to happen.

If the roles were reversed, Democrats would waste no time making Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico states, stacking the U.S. Supreme Court, and rewriting the Bill of Rights.

Republicans would do well to fight with the same urgency -- not to imitate Democrats’ lawlessness, but to match their determination.

When Democrats once again control Congress, Republicans will be relegated to the back benches, totally impotent and irrelevant as a political party.

And then there’s election integrity.

From ballot-harvesting to mail-in ballots and unsecured voting machines, Americans are losing faith in the process.

A Rasmussen Reports survey found that two-thirds of likely voters “suspect electronic voting machines may be vulnerable to online manipulation.” That’s not a partisan talking point -- it’s a crisis of confidence.

Trump is reportedly drafting an executive order on election reform, but executive orders are temporary fixes. Congress must act to secure voter ID, clean voter rolls, and ban foreign nationals from voting. Without trust in the ballot box, all other debates are meaningless. 

If government cannot provide honest and valid elections, every November we are merely watching a show, much like professional wrestling with its choreographed outcomes.

Now is the moment to deliver. With Republicans controlling the White House and Congress, this is the best, and perhaps last, opportunity to clean up elections, secure the border, and make Trump’s “America First” policies permanent. If squandered, Democrats will undo it all within a single term, more likely within days of assuming power, and it may take decades to recover.

Trump’s instincts are right -- think big, act boldly.

But his movement must now connect the macro to the micro. Translate peace abroad into safety at home. Turn tariffs into affordable groceries, good-paying jobs, and affordable homes. Show voters not just the vision but the benefit.

In politics, people vote their pocketbooks. Trump has the vision to rebuild America. Now he must make Americans feel it in their daily lives. As he posted after Tuesday’s elections: “And so it begins.”



Podcast and entertainment thread for Nov 11

 


I hate cold snaps

Disappearing Discipline

 

Why Are Our Colleges Deserting Military History?

Kali Jerrard for  CounterCurrent: Week of 11/10/2025


In honor of Veterans Day, we at the National Association of Scholars would like to extend our most heartfelt “thank you” to the brave men and women who serve and protect our nation.

While the majority of the nation has off today from school or work to commemorate this holiday, this question was rattling around in my head, how many Americans truly understand what that means? Academia has long failed to teach civics, history, and military history effectively, eroding patriotism at every level of education. In honor of our military, I’d like to explore this decline—along with the rise of woke ideology in our service academies—and discuss what can be done to reverse it.

In 2008, NAS published a symposium of sorts in our Spring issue of Academic Questions (AQ). In this issue, contributors offered their thoughts on the decline of military history within academia. For instance, Josiah Bunting III writes

The decline of military history in universities reflects an indulged hatred of war and armies (now identified, as they should not be, with ‘conservatism’—another slipshod judgment), and of military people as not clever or, if clever, perverse in the vocation to which they devote their intellectual talents. It reflects the wide cultural chasm between academia and the American military, a chasm never deeper or wider than now, in the thirty-fifth year of the all-volunteer military. 

While John A. Lynn II comments on the long-term preservation strategy, 

While a strategy for anchoring the field of military history concerns me most, in the long run what should concern us all is promoting and preserving historical studies in their full range. A limited selection of fashionable approaches to history studied in isolation is by its very nature a distortion. We gain by broad inclusion, not by narrow exclusion. Should the study of the conduct of war and military institutions be lost as a serious historical subdiscipline, it is not simply military historians who lose; it is all of us.

These are just two of many articles from that issue of AQ to quote—published 17 years ago but still strikingly relevant today. Colleges and universities should teach military history alongside the liberal arts, with professors serving as careful stewards of Western civilization’s cultural legacy. Educated Americans ought to understand the military’s role in our nation’s story, both on and off the battlefield. As Peter Wood suggests, this begins with reconciling “the necessary martial qualities of the soldier with the no less necessary qualities needed to participate in a civic order,” encouraging academia to engage more deeply with questions of war, peace, and our civilizational heritage.

When we lose this, we see the invasion of far-left ideology and those who desire the fall of Western civilization into not only higher education, but our military academies themselves. 

I recently corresponded with a naval midshipman who recounted his firsthand experiences with “diversity, equity, and inclusion”(DEI)  and other left-leaning ideologies at the Naval Academy from 2021–24. A few things he shared struck a chord: the entire Brigade was required to watch a “microaggressions” training video, making students hyperaware of acceptable language and framing in professional and academic settings; one professor explicitly urged white midshipmen to “understand their privilege” (paraphrased); and while dissenting from prevailing ideology was tolerated in private, students risked not being considered for leadership positions if they did so publicly or in official contexts.

What can be done? 

Colleges and universities should place more emphasis on teaching what military history means within the lens of our nation’s history, as well as more broadly, for Western civilization. This could mean hiring a professor specifically for such courses, or even requiring such a course within a core curriculum. Perhaps students should even be required to have conversations with our veterans as part of their coursework, learning from their experiences and perspectives serving in the military. As for the military academies, a purge of DEI from the culture and classrooms is imperative—the Trump administration is already working on this as well as restoring merit-based admissions standards.

By no means is this an exhaustive list, but it could be a start to pull back the anti-American and anti-Western sentiment blanketing academia, and reinstill a deeper appreciation for war and peace, our military and its history. 

Until next week.

https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/disappearing-discipline


CounterCurrent is the National Association of Scholars’ weekly newsletter, written by the NAS Staff. To subscribe, update your email preferences here.

Photo by Julien Gaud on Unsplash

Democrats Are Evil, Not Stupid


Democrats are the evil party, but that doesn’t mean they’re stupid. In fact, I often have to remind people that they are evil, not stupid, to explain why they do the things they do. They know what they’re doing, and you should too. It explains why, after more than 6 weeks, they suddenly decided to vote to reopen the government. It wasn’t because they felt people were suffering – you don’t subscribe to a political philosophy responsible for 100 million deaths in the last century if you have concern over suffering – but because it was electoral politics, plain and simple.

What changed the “principled stance” Democrats had been taking? The election happened. That’s it, that’s really all it was. If this had happened before the vote, there was a chance some Democrats, the more radical ones, would have stayed home. Disgusted people don’t generally go out and vote for the people with whom they are disgusted. 

But they did vote, and Democrats won the elections they should have won, so the threat is gone. They waited a week because they couldn’t do it immediately, lest they expose themselves as the frauds they are. But a week later has people have already forgotten how short a period of time ago the election was – “was it last week or the week before?” It really is that simple. 

Also worthy of note is the fact that none of the 8 Democrats who voted for the “deal” are up next year; they’re either retiring or have 15 political lifetimes between now and when they could next face voters. In other words, they were strategically chosen to cast just enough votes to end the shutdown while giving as many of their fellow travelers as possible the cover they need to pretend to be outraged over an end to the shutdown with nothing to show for it.

Of course, there never really was anything they wanted to show for it – if they really gave a damn about those Obamacare subsidies, they would have done something about them when they controlled government, and throwing more money at their failed health care takeover is not a sympathetic argument to run on. But they need SOMETHING. 

The one thing all the polling and the MSNBCs of the world tell Democrats they want is that they “FIGHT.” They don’t really ever say about or for what, just fight. You see it in the reactions to the election – “They want us to fight,” Democrats universally say. And that’s about as deep as the argument gets – just fight.

Fighting for the sake of fighting may feel good, but that doesn’t change it from a tactic to a strategy. Because of that, Republicans always had Democrats over a barrel. 

No one was ever going to starve, no one was ever really going to be hurt. The media found people they’d managed to panic to highlight, but nothing bad ever came to pass, or you would have seen that the whole time. 

We’re still days away from SNAP benefits being paid. What happened to all the “people are going hungry” stories? 

The Democrats who changed their votes (except Fetterman, who was solid the whole time) will be forgotten because no one in the progressive establishment will remind anyone about them. Like I said, these people are evil, not stupid.

Remember the push from the left to get rid of the filibuster when Democrats controlled everything? Only 2 Senators – Manchin and Sinema – were “all that stood between Democrats and getting their way legislatively.” 

That was a lie then – plenty of Democrats opposed getting rid of the filibuster but were afraid to say anything lest they face the wrath of the left and get a primary challenge. Manchin and Sinema gave all those others cover, took all the fire from the left and spared others from having to show the world how they really would have voted if the chips were down. The same thing happened here: political cover.

Democrats are evil, not stupid. Their voters, on the other hand…well, they keep falling for the game; keep sending all their banking information to that Nigerian prince waiting for the money to come rolling in. 

Yeah, it really is that sad. 



The Obamacare secret at the heart of the shutdown: insurers made billions at taxpayer expense

 


Subsidies were greatly expanded by the Biden administration during the COVID-19 pandemic as an emergency measure, but Democrats have fought to keep them permanent. Those subsidies went mostly to Democratic donors.

By Steven Richards

Published: November 10, 2025 10:57pm

The 42-day federal shutdown forced by Democrats thrust the economics of Obamacare into the limelight, and exposed an uncomfortable truth: An insurance industry whose executives are increasingly liberal donors has seen its earnings soar with the injection of taxpayer-funded subsidies that propped up Barack Obama's signature health program from collapse.

The nation’s largest health insurance companies have seen good business since Obamacare was first passed in 2010 and fully implemented in 2014. This has come in no small part because of federal government subsidies to the insurance industry, which government estimates show totaled $1.8 trillion in 2023 alone.

Those subsidies were greatly expanded by the Biden administration during the COVID-19 pandemic as an emergency measure, but Democrats have fought to keep them permanent.    

Obamacare brought health insurance companies historic profits

Just the News analysis of public financial records from four of the nation’s largest health insurance companies found that net earnings ballooned about 216% from 2010 to 2024. UnitedHealth Group in particular, which dominates the industry with a market share of around 15%, saw the largest explosion of profits. The other three companies, Elevance, Centene, and Cigna also experienced a marked growth in net earnings after the implementation of Obamacare. 

The healthcare legislation was also a boon for these companies’ stock prices. One study found the weighted average of health insurance stock prices has grown 1,032% from 2010—when the law was passed—and 448% from 2013—the year the legislation’s key provisions were implemented. 

This performance far outstripped the most popular S&P 500 exchange-traded fund, which grew 251% and 139%, respectively, the Paragon Health Institute reported last year. ETFs are designed to track the performance of specific stock indices and, as such, generally represent average market growth.

Graph showing the trajectory of health insurance company profits.

The companies’ earnings success has drawn the attention of President Trump, who on Sunday called Obamacare a scam by Democrats that benefits the health insurance industry. 

“Democrats claim to be working for ‘the little guy,’ and driving down your Health Insurance, but the OBAMACARE SCAM goes STRAIGHT TO THEIR BEST FRIENDS IN THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY. THEY ARE MAKING A ‘KILLING,’ while Health Coverage only gets WORSE,” Trump posted to Truth Social

Take from the public and give to donors

“If Democrats get their way again, they’re in for another HUGE Payday at the expense of the American People. NO DEAL! Republicans should give money DIRECTLY to your personal HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS that I expanded in our GREAT BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL,” Trump added. 

In recent years, individuals and PACs associated with these four health insurance companies have increasingly donated to Democratic presidential candidates—namely Biden and his vice president, Kamala Harris—whose administration expanded Obamacare subsidies, while contributing at much lower rates to candidate Trump. 

The 2024 election illustrates this trend. Individuals associated with UnitedHealth Group contributed a total of $742,271 to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, dwarfing the $158,000 received by the Trump campaign. Individuals associated with Centene contributed $225,622 to Harris and only $22,804 to Donald Trump. Individuals associated with Cigna sent $265,518 to Harris’ campaign compared to $99,930 to Trump’s. The only exception appears to be Elevance, which the records show did not make federal contributions in the 2024 cycle, according to OpenSecrets. 

In earnings projections and investor calls, the insurance companies admit that fading subsidies would have a big impact on their bottom line. They have told their investors about plans to raise premiums on Obamacare plans and even exit markets to preserve their profit margins, showing how dependent the large companies have become on the government-backed exchanges.

Corporations admit they are reliant on public money

UnitedHealth Group CEO Tim Noel told investors in an Oct. 28 earnings call that if his company could not negotiate “sustainable” rates, it would withdraw from markets and raise rates. He estimated that these efforts would likely result in two-thirds of its Obamacare customers dropping enrollment.   

“Where we are unable to reach agreement on sustainable rates, we are enacting targeted service area reductions,” Noel told investors. “We believe these actions will establish a sustainable premium base — while likely reducing our ACA enrollment by approximately two-thirds.”

Elevance, an Indianapolis-based insurance company, also cut its 2025 earnings guidance in July after increased healthcare utilization surged costs in government-backed programs, including both ACA markets and Medicare advantage. Centene also pulled its guidance for investors, seeing market difficulty on the horizon. 

The four companies did not respond to email requests for comment from Just the News

"It is a form of corruption, it is a form of corporate welfare to very profitable insurance companies, and it has to stop," Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, told the Just the News, No Noise TV show on Monday. 

"More importantly, it doesn't bring health care costs down. It may make it more affordable for one person, but it doesn't have any incentive for the insurance companies to bring down health care costs. So all you're doing is...that you're continuing ratcheting up premiums, because the insurance companies are getting directly subsidized by the taxpayers," she continued. 

Unused insurance means more profit in insurance company coffers

The Obamacare insurance exchanges also have another major flaw that fuels corporate profits. About a third of all subsidized Obamacare health plans go unused by the insured, meaning these plans translate into pure profits for the health insurance companies completely at the expense of the American taxpayer. 

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, President Joe Biden signed into law a bill that enhanced the Obamacare subsidies broadly as an emergency measure, which opened the door for such over-coverage. It also raised the qualifying income cap for the tax credits to 400% of the poverty level or $128,000 for a family of four. 

“These are not about the ACA subsidies, like the original Obamacare subsidies don't expire,” Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., told the John Solomon Reports podcast. “This is about the COVID-era tax credits that layer on top of that, and the tax credits don't go to Americans, they go directly to insurance companies.

He said “many people can get free policies through these pancaking layered tax credits” and some “people don’t even realize they’re double covered” because of deceptive sales tactics. 

“40% of these policies have never had a single claim applied to them. It's amazing […] It shows that these are phantom policies, people aren't using them, they aren't making Americans healthier. Instead, they are just checks written to the insurance companies,” Johnson said. 

This expansion “often [resulted] in federal taxpayers footing the bill for all, or nearly all, premium costs for silver and bronze plans, as well as gold plans,” the Paragon Institute concluded. Bronze, Silver, and Gold describe increasing levels of insurance plans that decrease deductible cost and lower cost sharing as you climb the rungs. 

35% of enrollees never file a claim

“Large insurers benefit greatly from phantom enrollment, as they collect billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to cover individuals who cost them nothing,” wrote Niklas Kleinworth, Liam Sigaud, and John Graham in a Paragon Health Institute policy brief last month.

The data show that nearly 12 million enrollees, about 35% of all people enrolled in the Obamacare exchange, are actually zero-claim enrollees. This means that their health coverage did not translate into actual health care. 

Paragon found that the average profile of these enrollees is someone who is healthy and likely does not need full coverage for care. Additionally, the researchers identified worrying data that many were enrolled in full coverage without their knowledge, raising fraud concerns and leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab.

But what caused this pattern of perverse incentives? The expanded Obamacare subsidies that are now at risk due to the government shutdown, the researchers say. 

“Our analysis shows that these enrollees are not just healthy enrollees with no need for care. They are part of a larger story about how Biden COVID credits are driving perverse incentives,” the Paragon authors wrote.

https://justthenews.com/government/congress/obamacare-secret-heart-shutdown-insurers-got-rich-taxpayer-expense

🎭 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. 


Trump Pardons 77 Citizens Targeted By Democrats In 2020 Election Lawfare


The electors and those working with them on behalf of Trump have had their lives and livelihoods uprooted due to the Democrats’ lawfare. The president’s pardons seek to end the injustice.



President Donald Trump pardoned 77 U.S. citizens targeted by Democrat attorneys general for their participation in alternative elector efforts and challenges to 2020 presidential election vulnerabilities. A memo obtained exclusively by The Federalist explains the theory behind the presidential pardons issued to defendants charged with various violations of state criminal law — a novel theory but one that corners the Democrats behind the weaponization of the criminal justice system.

On Friday, the Trump Administration began contacting the scores of Republicans still facing criminal charges in a handful of blue states for their service as alternative electors — or connection to the alternative electors — conveying the president’s decision to pardon them. The official pardon provides that “the President grant[s] a full, complete, and unconditional pardon for all conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of Presidential electors, whether or not recognized by any state or state official, in connection with the 2020 Presidential Election.”

President Trump’s pardon adopts the recommendation the Office of U.S. Pardon Attorney Edward R. Martin provided in a 15-page memorandum obtained exclusively by The Federalist. In that memorandum, Martin detailed the numerous illegal changes to election laws that proceeded the 2020 presidential election, stressing that “[l]awsuits brought to challenge the unconstitutional changes to election laws, procedural violations, ineligible voters, and election irregularities were dismissed by courts on technical and procedural grounds rather than being fully adjudicated on the merits.”

To preserve those legal challenges, the Republican electors in the contested states met and cast votes as alternative electors for Donald Trump, transmitting those results to Congress consistent with, as the memo explained, “core Article II and Twelfth Amendment federal functions.” Martin’s memorandum further explained:

Those actions were taken based on sound historical and legal precedent, and ensured that legislatures in the Challenged States could select the rightful winner of the Election in the event the legislatures or the courts determined there had been a flawed calculation of votes or an unconstitutional deviation from state election law resulting in the wrong electoral votes being counted.

Martin, of course, is right, as The Federalist detailed in “The Left’s 2020 ‘Fake Electors’ Narrative Is Fake News.” As The Federalist reported and as Martin also explained in his memorandum, the Trump campaign’s submission of alternative electors mirrored the process the Kennedy campaign used in 1960 after the acting governor of Hawaii certified the Republican electors to Nixon. There, as in Trump’s case, Kennedy had filed a challenge to the results in state court, and accordingly Democrats certified three alternative electors to cast their ballots for Kennedy in the event the court ruled in his favor. 

Two of the three Democrat electors were retired federal judges and yet they certified — as did the Trump alternative electors — that they were “duly and legally qualified and appointed” electors for Kennedy. The Democrats further certified “the votes of the state of Hawaii” were given to Kennedy. Kennedy later prevailed in his legal challenge, with his alternative electors then casting their votes in his favor.

Notwithstanding the clear precedent for using alternative electors, former FBI Director Christopher Wray, with then-Attorney General Merrick Garland’s explicit approval, launched a criminal investigation into Donald Trump, his lawyers, and the alternate electors based on the supposed “fraudulent certificates of electors’ votes [] submitted to the Archivist of the United States” for Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin. Whistleblowers have since revealed “that the FBI wasn’t merely targeting Trump or a few high-level officials, but potentially more than 150 individuals.”

Following an extensive federal investigation into the use of alternative electors, “Special Counsel Jack Smith only charged Donald Trump with crimes related to the contested election, although the indictment described several supposed co-conspirators. However, several states — or in the case of Georgia, Fulton County — pursued nearly identical criminal cases against the alternative electors, as well as other lawyers and members of the Trump campaign.”

Those “so-called state criminal proceedings involving Trump electors filed by Democrat state attorneys general in Arizona (Kris Mayes), Nevada (Aaron Ford), Michigan (Dana Nessel), and Wisconsin (Josh Kaul), and the now disgraced Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in Georgia, are not truly state proceedings,” election lawyer Cleta Mitchell maintained last week at The Federalist. In “Presidential Pardons Are Needed For Trump Electors Persecuted By Biden DOJ,” Mitchell, who had represented the Trump Administration in his challenge to the Georgia election outcome, claimed “[e]very one of the indictments stemmed from the Arctic Frost investigations conducted by the Biden FBI and DOJ, and the Democrat prosecutors acted at the behest of the Biden DOJ in bringing the fake criminal charges against Trump and his electors, lawyers, and supporters.”

“The state proceedings are simply proxies for what had been intended by the Biden DOJ to be federal charges filed in Washington, D.C.,” Mitchell concluded.

U.S. Pardon Attorney Martin’s memorandum to President Trump stresses a similar point, namely that the “prosecutions are attempts by partisan state actors to shoehorn fanciful and concocted state law violations onto what are clearly federal constitutional obligations of the 2020 Trump campaign: the establishment of the contingent electors, the actions attendant to their roles as presidential electors, and their duties under established historical and legal precedent to exercise their responsibilities as electors – all of which are functions of federal – not state – law.”

Under the memorandum’s reasoning, then, because the states are prosecuting the 2020 Trump electors, and those connected to the decision to use alternative electors, for exercising a solely federal function, the President of the United States can pardon them for their supposed state law crimes. This novel theory seeks to sidestep the normal limitation on the president’s pardon authority — an authority limited to pardoning individuals for solely federal crimes.

The Democrat attorneys general behind the prosecutions may not wish to push the matter because doing so could expose either their complicity with the Biden Administration or with Democrat activists. Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis already learned that lesson when her efforts to prosecute the Georgia electors and Trump attorneys led to the discovery that “both the Fulton County prosecutor and her paramour-paid junior prosecutor engaged with Biden Administration officials both before and after obtaining the indictment.”

In Arizona, following her indictment, Christina Bobb, a former Senior Election Integrity Counsel at the RNC, discovered that the States United Democracy Center, a left-wing non-profit organization, “initiated and planned the strategy for [Arizona’s] prosecution.” According to her Motion to Disqualify the Attorney General, Bobb only discovered the Arizona AG’s collaboration with States United “due to an error.” Specifically, the AG’s office accidently attached “the memo prepared by States United planning the legal strategy for this prosecution” to a court filing, exposing the relationship. Afterwards, the Arizona AG claimed it had entered in an attorney-client relationship with States United and then refused to disclose any further interactions with the liberal outfit.

Given States United’s connection to the Democrat Party and its unsavory involvement with the targeting of Republicans, as well as the growing scandal of Arctic Frost, the Arizona Democrat AG might well have wanted to let its criminal case against the electors die a quiet death. That seemed a likely outcome after the trial court in Arizona remanded the case to the grand jury for reconsideration, holding the State failed “to make a fair and impartial presentation to the grand jury” when it did not properly instruct the grand jury on the Electoral Count Act. That case has since been stayed.

The Georgia case is likewise on hold while the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, who was assigned to review the case after the Georgia Supreme Court let stand the lower court’s disqualification of DA Willis, considers whether charges are appropriate. In Wisconsin, charges brought by the Democrat Attorney General against two attorneys and one former Trump campaign worker based solely on the theory of “fake” electors, remain pending after the trial court denied the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Conversely, in Michigan, a trial judge recently dismissed the charges against the electors, concluding no crime occurred. Democrat Attorney General Dana Nessel has yet to announce whether she intends to appeal that dismissal. And in Nevada, charges against the alternative electors remain pending in two courts, as the Democrat Attorney General there filed a back-up charge after the first court dismissed the charges based on improper venue.

While there is no trial imminent, for some five years, the electors and those working with them on behalf of Trump have had their lives and livelihoods uprooted due to the Democrats’ lawfare. They have also faced a huge financial and emotional toll. The president’s pardons seek to end the injustice.

Whether the courts agree that the president’s pardon authority extends to crimes allegedly committed in performing duties under Article II remains to be seen. But the move forces Democrats to own the weaponization they launched in 2020.


Federal Appeals Court Tells School District It Cannot Coerce ‘Preferred Pronoun’ Use


The 112-page decision makes clear just how far this school district, and those with similar policies, go in doing the political work of advancing gender ideology.



Students cannot be forced to use “preferred pronouns” when referring to others who claim to be “transgender” because it violates the First Amendment, according to a Thursday ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Ohio’s Olentangy Local School District (OLSD) cannot “wield their authority to compel speech or demand silence from citizens who disagree with the regulators’ politically controversial preferred new form of grammar,” a 10-7 en banc decision states.

“American history and tradition uphold the majority’s decision to strike down the school’s pronoun policy,” the court stated. “Over hundreds of years, grammar has developed in America without governmental interference. Consistent with our historical tradition and our cherished First Amendment, the pronoun debate must be won through individual persuasion, not government coercion. Our system forbids public schools from becoming ‘enclaves of totalitarianism.’”

The lawsuit was originally filed by Defending Education (DE) in 2023, arguing that the school district’s anti-harassment policy compelled “students to affirm beliefs about sex and gender that are contrary to their own deeply held beliefs.”

“The court’s decision – and its many concurrences – articulate the importance of free speech, the limits and perils of public schools claiming to act in loco parentis [in place of a parent], and the critical role of persuasion – rather than coercion – in America’s public square,” DE founder and president Nicole Neily said in a statement.

DE said that students who did not want to be forced into using the “preferred pronouns” requested by their gender-confused peers risked being punished by the school, including suspension and expulsion, because the school district considered the “transgender”-identified students as a protected class.

Students’ options were to risk punishment by not going along with the mandate, act against religious beliefs and and scientific reality and use the “preferred pronouns,” or have their speech chilled out of fear of being punished.

The mandate extended beyond being in school as well, as, according to the court, “the School District’s ban on biological pronouns extends far beyond the classroom — indeed, its anti-harassment policies reach personal speech on social media off school grounds.”

Like so many other school districts with absurd “transgender” policies, including ones that allow those of the opposite sex to use restrooms and locker rooms not meant for them, OLSD put the brunt of the burden to respond to the totalitarian “transgender” requirements fully on the students who are not claiming to be a different gender.

“The School District responds that it would permit ‘accommodations’ that would allow students to ‘avoid using pronouns’ at all if they refuse to use preferred pronouns,” the court stated, showing how the other students would still have to change their activity and seek accommodation to adhere to the school-imposed gender ideology.

“The School District has not just entered this policy debate. It has taken a side. The School District has ‘targeted’ a speaker’s use of biological pronouns as improper while allowing students to use preferred pronouns (no matter how novel),” the court continued. “The District’s ban on the use of biological pronouns regulates speech on a public concern in a way that discriminates based on viewpoint. So the District bears a heavy evidentiary burden to justify its ban. But it presented no evidence at all that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or violate anyone’s rights.”

The 112-page decision makes clear just how far this school district, and those with similar policies, go in doing the political work of advancing gender ideology, noting, “the School District is wrong to treat the use of biological pronouns alone as analogous to this abusive invective.”

“In ordinary conversations (especially conversations between young students), it would be all but ‘impossible’ to train oneself not to use pronouns when referring to others,” they added. “Students do not use this speech to belittle others; they use it because there is no practical alternative short of expressing a viewpoint with which they might fundamentally disagree.”

“Despite its ham fisted attempt to moot the case, Olentangy School District was sternly reminded by the 6th circuit en banc court that it cannot force students to express a viewpoint on gender identity with which they disagree, nor extend its reach beyond the schoolhouse threshold into matters better suited to an exercise of parental authority,” DE vice president and legal fellow Sarah Parshall Perry said. “A resounding victory for student speech and parental rights was long overdue for families in the school district and we are thrilled the court’s ruling will benefit others seeking to vindicate their rights in the classroom and beyond.”



The Current Culture Democrats Have Created for Their Party Is Unsustainable


The moment a bullet zipped past then-candidate Donald Trump's ear to the sound of groans and disappointment from the left was the moment something shifted in America. Too many on the left didn't just express a sense of anger around that failure; they actively encouraged more attempts. 

Then Charlie Kirk was shot, and this time, many on the left erupted in celebration. As time went on, they continued to demonstrate just how much they loved the idea of violence against their opponents. Teachers simulated Kirk's neck shot. 


Violence isn't just a mere suggestion anymore. In many cases, it's a demand that has a few voluntary suppliers. All the while, no one seems to be trying to slam the brakes. Not the politicians. Not the media.

On the Left's favorite social media platform, Bluesky, any bipartisan work or failure is punishable, not just with getting voted out of office, but with death threats, too. As Bonchie noted in a report on Monday, Bluesky users are currently displaying guillotine memes featuring Chuck Schumer. 

In an interesting conversation with comedian Bill Maher, actress Cheryl Hines, who is also the wife of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., noted that Democrats aren't the Democrats of the past, noting that Republicans were always nicer than Democrats, even when her husband was running as a Democrat. Maher vehemently agreed, noting that the Democrats have become "mean." 


And I can’t say that for the Democrats.

This attitude comes from the Democrat Party becoming consumed with purity tests that, if failed, can result in anything from ostracization to assassination. Property damage is permissible if the damage is being done to someone whom the Left feels should suffer. For a while, Tesla owners were gathering footage of people vandalizing their cars. Store owners had to put up signs begging rioters not to destroy their businesses during Black Lives Matter. 

How long can Democrats keep this up? When even dyed-in-the-wool Dems like Maher are throwing their hands up and asking where the Democrat Party he knew went, it shows that there is a bleed that members of the party seem to have no desire to stanch. Anyone who drifts outside of the party's approved grounds is pushed further away by the culture the Democrats have created. 

It's not just a culture of hate, it's one of exclusion. Rich, because "inclusion" is one of the left's favorite buzzwords, but when you break down what they mean by "inclusion," what they're really saying is "you better include yourself in our plan, or else." They demand rigorous adherence to the cause du jour, and anyone who falls outside it is a "threat to Democracy," which is the banner they wave to excuse the worst kinds of behavior. 

And while high-profile people receive threats, the greatest victims of leftist "inclusion" are people like you and me. We're the ones who have to watch out for violence when speaking up. We're the ones whose businesses are threatened anytime the Democrat Party and the media feel the need to gin up another riot. We're the ones who have our careers threatened for speaking the truth. 

There's no room for dialogue. If you have an opinion that doesn't conform, then you're not just to be dismissed, you're to be shut up. 

There's no room for the individual in this kind of culture, and if that's the kind of culture the left wants to embrace, then there's no stopping the bleed of support. Unless completely brainwashed, eventually, too many people will find that one event or experience that causes disgust against the Democrat Party, and the Democrats will have nothing to bring them back to the fold because there can be no conversation but the one they allow. 

This is a culture of hate, of narrow-mindedness, of isolation, and death. 

The Democrat Party cannot survive like this in the long term.