Friday, November 14, 2025

Marxism Never Changes


Politicians like Zohran Mamdani like to boast that they, like Obama, are the prophets of change.  In reality, they are puppets controlled by their puppet-masters, those in a long line of socialists leading back to Marx himself.  The nuances and tactics change, as when Lenin fundamentally altered Marx’s idea of the “revolt of the masses” and replaced it with top-down organizing based on violence and intimidation — a concept that Saul Alinsky popularized in America — but the essence of Marxism remains the same.

At its heart, Marxism focuses on seizing the capital and means of production from “the rich” and redistributing it, in theory, at least, to the working class.  In reality, the wealth is always seized and retained by the communist elite, thus replacing one class of capitalists — those who invest their hard earned money in productive ways for the benefit of society — with another, far more devious and ruthless, class of controllers who, like Mamdani, have never worked.

David Horowitz, once a Marxist himself, understands the nature of Marxism better than most.  When Marxists agitate “on behalf of” workers, blacks, women, or gays and the transgendered, it is never actually on their behalf; it is a means to gain power.  Socialists like Mamdani promise the moon, but how much do they provide?

For Marxists, as Horowitz writes in Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model (2008), “the issue is always the revolution.  In other words the cause — whether inner city blacks or women — is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution.”

In America, under theorists such as Herbert Marcuse, Duncan Kennedy, Derrick Bell, and Alinsky himself, Marxism adopted Antonio Gramsci’s strategy of  “the long march through the institutions”: the tactics of infiltrating and taking over the critical institutions of education, government, and media.

Those who have recently spent time in American universities know exactly what Gramsci intended.  Most departments in the humanities and social scientists, and even in science, engineering, and law, are now dominated by leftists who have substituted propaganda for teaching.  Professors now see their primary mission as to indoctrinate students in Marxist thinking rather than to teach their subject in an objective manner.  Conservative faculty, who are few to begin with, are driven from the universities by deans who deny promotion and university presses and journals that refuse to publish conservative work.

Eighty-four percent of Harvard arts and sciences faculty identified as “liberal” in 2022.  In 2024, that figure declined to 70%, though perhaps only because some feared criticism for their monolithic ideology.  Still, in 2024, no memberof that faculty identified as “very conservative.”  In a 2025 editorial, Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield decried the lack of intellectual diversity at the university, but there appears to be no effort to implement his proposal for hiring conservatives.  To do so would threaten the “long march” toward Marxism that exists at that and many other institutions.

Similarly, leftist thinking dominates the media.  According to the Media Research Center, 94% of donations from those working for five major media outlets went to Democrats between 2008 and 2016.  That percentage — and the anti-Trump messaging that goes along with it — has almost certainly increased since 2016.  Perhaps this is why only 12% of Republicans now trust the media.  Leftists have all but taken over the national media, just as Marcuse proposed.

And now, especially with the election of three prominent Democrats in November 2025, the long march of Marxism through politics continues.  It’s crucial to understand that the Gramscian ideology that underlies American Marxism is fundamentally and irrevocably anti-democratic, even in situations where elections are allowed to take place.  Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential race, but she did not accept the result: She worked for years afterward, it seems, to undermine the first Trump presidency by pushing the “Russiagate” hoax.

Elections are a means to an end, but after they gain power, Marxists govern in a top-down fashion.  From Lenin to Castro to Pol Pot and Kim Jong-un to Maduro, no Marxist leader accepts the popular will once he gains power.  Nor will Marxists in America.  Even at the presidential level, when races are close, Marxists (otherwise known as “progressives”) will cheat to alter the result.  And in governing, they will impose their ideology on the populace, no matter how unpopular that ideology may be.

In part, Marxist ideology is largely economic.  It involves raising taxes in order to transfer wealth from the rich to the government.  But it also involves changing the culture, a point that Gramsci and Marcuse stressed to no end.  Marxists intend to gain control of the mind, and in order to do so, they must demolish those traditional institutions that guide the thinking of most Americans: the church, the family, patriotism, and the capitalist system.

“Demolish” is not too strong a word.  Marxist educators now employ sex education at a ridiculously young age, along with transgender coaching and “affirmation,” in an effort to demolish the family and eliminate the control of parents over their children.  Indeed, the role of parents in guiding the education of their children is now completely excluded in some school districts.  For that reason, some of the most bitter conflicts have been between parents and school boards and teachers.

Marxism is making its way through our nation’s institutions, and only a determined, peaceful resistance can stop it.  The 2025 elections, with the election of self-proclaimed socialists and liberals in the major races, may seem a low point for conservatives, but these elections may create an even more determined resistance.  The Marxist wolf is no longer hiding in progressive sheep’s clothing; he is out in the open, running as a “democratic socialist” (certainly an oxymoron if ever there was one, since Marxists are never truly democratic).  Now we see them for what they are: the progeny of Lenin, Stalin, and Castro, and now there is no excuse for refusing to oppose them.



Entertainment thread for Nov 14

 


Don't worry about things you can't control. (or at least TRY to).

The GOP doesn’t have the killer instinct Democrats have. Why is that?


Republicans are notorious for caving in, for breaking ranks and screwing things up at the very moment when unity is critical for success. It’s almost like we have a death wish. I have wondered for a long time why we don’t have the killer instinct Democrats have in abundance.

There is an abiding difference in worldviews between the GOP/conservatives and Democrats/leftists. The Left are meaner, nastier, more hostile and violent than the Right. So what causes that? I posit that the left are not answerable to a higher power, believing, wrongly, that they won’t suffer for their illegal and immoral behavior. The left seem to be easily able to slip the boundaries of accountability and integrity of character, and do what is most expedient rather than what is best. Their lives are firmly encased from without by a too-casual approach to honor and decency.

The left like abortion because they are godless, and view a fetus as a lifeless blob, while the right see fetuses as God’s creative human miracles. The difference in religious attitudes makes the difference. For leftists, life is for the living and a fetus is not living.

The left, because of their religious shortcomings, have little problem with using lies and violence to get their way. “For the greater good” and “whatever it takes” are mottos leftists live by. Whatever gets them their agenda is right and proper. By contrast, the right usually has ethical standards which preclude using nefarious techniques, and they will bend over backwards to avoid such tactics. Why? Because lying and deception are against God’s law and most GOP are people of faith.

Too many on the left, because of their lack of love for God, engage in profligate profanity, dΓ©classΓ© manners, sexual deviancy, egocentrism, and narcissistic ideation, which are a daily part of their lives. I posit that the lack of meaningful ethics frees them to treat others with disdainful shouting, profanity, and physical harm. The right uses none of those techniques.

The left thrive on disruption and chaos; they are the first to cause a scene in a restaurant, in a checkout line, in classrooms and offices, or on the streets. The right do not, because we are taught how to behave from either reading the Bible or by parents who did. “God is not the author of confusion”, but leftists are. We on the right generally hang out with people who have good manners and would cringe at the very notion of disruption and chaos.

The right avoids unprovoked violence because — wait for it — it is wrong. Even those on the right who are not believers in God have a sense of what is right, and that is where they go. Not the left — they veer off to choose the path less honorable. They have embraced shouting and screaming as their coin of discourse instead of reasoned argument.

My overall theory for these cataclysmic differences is the lack of transcendent meaning in the lives of leftists as compared with those on the right. Whether those two proclivities are genetic or cultural is something to ponder. In any case, when you don’t believe that you must answer to a higher power for your words and deeds, you feel free to say and do just about anything.  That is a very shallow place to be. Their vacant lives depend upon membership in the cult of confrontation. That is living lite without conscience.

By contrast, the richness that belief in God brings to every aspect of life is incalculable. God has told us how to behave, how to treat people, and how to present our arguments for best effect. Such behavior forbids violence and ugly behavior, but this is not enough to overcome the current danger of half the country believing that they must enact their hostile agenda come hell and murder and street violence.

There are leftists who are trying openly to kill our president and other powerful Republicans. They advocate for, finance, and broadcast bounties for ICE scalps and police deaths, and the deaths of powerful Republicans and conservatives like Charlie Kirk. There is a miasma of evil shrouding the American experiment. The lion’s share comes from the Left, not the right.

Now what? When do Republicans serious up about the miscreants who are deliberately calling for and funding violence in our streets and in Congress? So far, they look impotent, even with the deportations. Where is the justice for the street violence?

When do we on the right develop a strong spine and stop allowing vitriolic blue-haired harridans to spit in the faces of law enforcement?

When does the GOP stop virtue-signaling in congressional affairs that we are moderates? We are starting to look like the worst of Europe, Africa, and Asia.

It is suicidal to engage in moderation when faced with violent extremism.




Judicial Overreach Threatens the Republic


Should America’s constitutional republic ever fall, the most likely cause of death will be its corrupt institutions. When citizens lose faith in the “system” and have exhausted all available remedies to “fix” that “system,” they will feel wholly disconnected from the government that rules over them. A cascade of institutional crises will exacerbate public distrust in the “system” until the “system’s” legitimacy collapses.

Should that foreboding and chaotic event come, a primary driver will have been the public’s complete loss of faith in the courts of the United States. On this point, Americans across the political spectrum will agree.

Democrats today are so hostile toward conservative members of the Supreme Court that justices have been the targets of assassination attempts and public mobs. Prominent Democrat politicians openly call for a future Democrat president and Congress to pack the Supreme Court with partisan apparatchiks. Democrat lawmakers already describe the conservative-leaning Court as “illegitimate” and a “threat to democracy” -- not-so-subtle rhetorical invitations for violent knuckle-draggers from their own party to “protect democracy” by murdering “illegitimate” justices. 

Non-leftists (Republicans, conservatives, constitutionalists, and defenders of personal liberty) have their own serious issues with the federal courts. For decades, Democrats in the Senate have been unscrupulous in their willingness to scuttle judicial nominees from Republican presidents by orchestrating elaborate smear campaigns designed to make confirmations impossible.

Retired justice Anthony Kennedy is out with a new book this month about his thirty-year tenure on the Supreme Court, but the only reason he has a book to sell is because Democrats waged an effective public relations war against the confirmation of highly competent conservative Judge Robert Bork. Because President Reagan’s stellar nominee was prevented from taking his seat on the Court, Americans got stuck with Kennedy’s wet-noodle jurisprudence.

Democrats’ successful propaganda efforts to embarrass conservative nominees -- including their ongoing lies that justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh are sexual predators -- have discouraged several generations of conservatives with stellar legal minds from pursuing judicial careers. Those conservatives who do join the bench remain targets of harassment and intimidation from Democrat-organized mobs.

Even more concerning for non-leftist Americans than Democrat-inspired intimidation of conservative judges, however, is the continuing aggrandizement of local district court judges. It seems that not a day goes by without some federal judge far from Washington, D.C., instructing the president of the United States how to execute the duties of his office. Random judges purport to have the power to order President Trump around whenever he does something that offends their partisan sensibilities. District court judges pretend to be commanders in chief, experts in foreign policy, and the final authorities on how the Executive Branch manages executive agencies.

Because federal judges enjoy lifetime tenures, they should perform their duties with incomparable restraint. Instead, too many now rule as kings and queens. 

There are roughly seven hundred federal district court judges. When they insist on exercising a veto power over the president of the United States, they warp the Constitution’s structure by elevating the will of unelected judges above the discretion of an elected president.

Judicial review -- the recognized authority of the Judicial Branch to invalidate laws and government actions when they are deemed to violate the Constitution -- gives courts a unique power over Congress and the White House. Although the Founding Fathers seemed to anticipate and generally agree that the Supreme Court would determine when laws or executive orders are unconstitutional, there was ample debate as to whether judges should be empowered to act as supra-legislators who could rewrite or nullify acts of Congress. If the branches are truly coequal, after all, why should the Legislative or Executive Branches have any less authority when it comes to faithfully executing their constitutional obligations? 

Furthermore, recognizing the Supreme Court as having the authority to declare a legislative or executive act as unconstitutional is quite different from giving an obscure district court judge such expansive authority. The first sentence of the first section of Article III states, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” In other words, the U.S. Constitution requires nothing more than one federal judge to serve on the Supreme Court.

When the federal government is limited in size and authority, it seems fairly reasonable to recognize that the person vested with Article III powers would be in an ideal position to judge when Congress or the president exceeds the limits of the Constitution. As a legal process, judicial review gives the Supreme Court an important “check” on the other branches’ powers. When the awesome powers of the Judicial Branch are delegated to seven hundred district court judges, however, unfettered judicial review looks more like a coup. 

Voters elect four hundred and thirty-five members of the House of Representatives, one hundred members of the Senate, a president, and a vice president to execute faithfully their constitutional duties. Then seven hundred unelected judges whom nobody knows presume to have the final say over what those elected officials can constitutionally do. Whatever the Founding Fathers had in mind, they surely did not intend for some Portland judge to usurp the president’s authority as commander in chief. Such judicial overreach delegitimizes the courts in the minds of the American people. Republics have fallen for less.



🎭 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. 


Trump Should Learn From J.D. Vance When It Comes To Talking About Prices And Affordability

If his vice president can do it, so can Trump.



When President Trump is asked about the economy from now on it would be a good idea for him to simply refer back to one of his vice president’s interviews last month. J.D. Vance was able to talk about it then in ways that Trump is apparently incapable of now.

MAGA people are nearly in tears of rage this week for good reason after watching Trump repeatedly declare all is well on the home front while he gallivants around the White House grounds with foreign leaders, showing them his latest gold-trimmed renovations. It’s not that the president is tending to world affairs or trifling with his silly renovation projects. It’s that all is not well here in America, where the people who elected him actually live.

Asked on Fox News this week about enduring voter concerns on the obscene costs of living, Trump said, “More than anything else it’s a con job by the Democrats.” He then suggested the fact that “costs are up” is a talking point created by the news media, followed by a confounding assertion that “costs are way down.”

In that same vein, Trump said last week, “Our groceries are way down. Everything is way down.” He said that on camera, believe it or not. Oh, he also said, “I don’t want to hear about the affordability.”

It’s untrue that “everything is way down,” and it’s an insult to readers to have to prove it. But to be sure, car insurance is up 12 percent from last year, the president’s own Agriculture Department acknowledges that food prices are rising faster than usual, and even Amazon has increased it’s average price on stuff by almost 13 percent since the start of 2025. This comes after the country was sandbagged by a cry-inducing 20 percent increase in prices under Joe Biden.

The current president would be forgiven for the costs of basic needs not having dropped back to where they were in 2019 just one year into his second term. Getting even close to that is going to take time. But “I don’t want to hear about the affordability” is unacceptable to everyone who put him in office precisely because the last president blew off the same problem and, indeed, denied it even was a problem.

But, hey, how’s that new ballroom and Arc de Trump coming along? Meet with any more kings lately?

Again, Trump’s voters don’t care if he wants to indulge in the trappings of his occupation. But they expect a return on their investment, which was not cheap. We lost friends and family over it. Fortunately not everyone in the White House is so unbothered by middle- and working-class people having to constantly think up new ways to stretch a dollar.

Just two weeks ago Vice President J.D. Vance was saying all the right things as they relate to the economy. “We’re nine months into this thing, we’ve done a lot of good,” he said in an interview with the New York Post’s Miranda Devine. And then he asserted the administration’s proper ownership of the problem at hand. “There’s a lot more work to do because, I mean, look, the thing that I most worry about is that Biden left us a terrible affordability crisis,” he said. “We’ve got to make life more affordable for American citizens. Again, we’ve chipped away at that problem, but there’s a lot more work to do there.”

Obviously more is expected than just an acknowledgment that people continue taking on credit card debt and staking out second jobs just to keep up with their bills. But at a minimum, it’s demanded of the president to assure everyone that he isn’t just having a good time with dignitaries in his eternal quest to secure a Nobel Peace Prize.

If his vice president can do it, so can Trump.



Justice Gorsuch: ‘The Greatest Danger America Faces Today’ Is ‘Itself’


‘Thomas Jefferson said an ignorant people will never remain free for long, and he’s right,’ Gorsuch said.



Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has long championed the importance of civic education in America. So, it wasn’t totally surprising when he issued a stark warning about what happens when a people abandon their shared history and responsibilities.

The moment came on Thursday morning when Gorsuch appeared on Fox News’ Fox & Friends to debut his new children’s book, The Heroes of 1776. The literary work seeks to take kids on a journey through the harrowing stories of the Founding Fathers and lesser-known patriots during the Revolutionary War era.

While speaking to the justice, network host Lawrence Jones asked Gorsuch about the meaning of a quote from the book, which reads, “The Constitution established the first modern republic in which people rule themselves …” The Trump appointee referred back to the Declaration of Independence, which he said “contains three ‘radical’ ideas: that we’re all created equal, that we have unalienable rights that come to us from God [and] not from government, and that we the people have a right to rule ourselves — not be subjects to some dictator or a crown or king.”

“Those three ideas really shook old Europe [and were] never before tried in history. We now almost take them for granted. They’re the air we breathe, the water we swim in,” Gorsuch said. “But those ideas required courageous men, women, and children to make happen in 1776, and they require the same of us today. Thomas Jefferson said an ignorant people will never remain free for long, and he’s right. We need to know our history in order to preserve it.”

Staying on the subject of understanding America’s past, Jones noted that many schools no longer seem to be teaching the types of founding-era stories and history contained within Gorsuch’s book to younger generations. He then asked the justice whether he believes “that has hurt us as a society — that we eliminated those stories out of the history books?”

The Trump appointee said that bringing civic education to the youth is a common issue he and his Supreme Court colleagues “agree on.” He then went on to cite alarming statistics that display waning civic knowledge throughout America and warned that such ignorance poses an existential danger to the country’s future.

“If you ask me what the greatest danger America faces today, it’s itself,” Gorsuch said. “We have to learn how to talk to one another. We need to know our shared history, and I think if we do that, we’ll come to realize that all the things that separate us pale in comparison to the things that unite us — those three great ideas in the Declaration.”

The Thursday interview is hardly the first time Gorsuch has sounded the alarm about America’s failure to educate its people about their history and government.

In his 2019 book, A Republic If You Can Keep It, the associate justice noted how the only way for American society to function is to have an active and engaged citizenry that is united around a common set of ideals.

“A government of and by the people rests on the belief that the people should and can govern themselves — and do so in peace, with mutual respect. For all that to work, the people must have some idea how their own government operates — its essential structure and promises, what it was intended to do and prohibited from doing,” Gorsuch wrote. “The essential goodness of the American people is a profound reservoir of strength, and this nation has overcome much graver challenges time and again. But we should never ignore the fact that republics have a mixed record in the history books. Our blessings cannot be taken for granted and need constant tending.”



Most Women Are On Crazy Pills, And It’s Bad For Everyone


An entire generation of women is lost amidst engineered anxiety, chasing hollow independence while forsaking the proven anchors of marriage, family, and selfless purpose.



I went back to grad school later in life. Thus, I was many years older, decades even, than my intellectual cohorts. I’ll never forget when a young lady in class, no older than 25, made a comment rather cavalierly about taking her SSRI pills. I was stunned at how natural this disclosure seemed to her. I suppose it was my look of surprise that prompted her to respond: “What? Isn’t everyone on SSRIs?”

The Girls Are Not Alright

I have since come to find out that, yes indeed, many people, particularly young adult women, are on some sort of anti-depressive medication. In my day, illicit drugs (such as alcohol and marijuana) were more the norm. Yet they still weren’t considered “normal” because they were — well — illegal. We had to sneak around to do it. We couldn’t walk into class with a joint or crack open a Natty Light in the middle of chemistry.

These days, however, kids do drugs with a doctor’s prescription and often, parental blessing. Maybe that is because adults who take medication for their depression, anxiety, and other mood disorders are in no way bashful about their reliance on medication. As a recent article in The Wall Street Journal entitled “Girl, Take Your Crazy Pills!” pointed out, SSRIs are the new Birkin bag — a status symbol and source of pride. Or as the Journal described them, a “hot lifestyle accessory.”

The Scourge of Social Media

A variety of cultural shifts have led to women’s declining mental status, including a high prevalence of social media use, particularly among younger girls. As Jonathan Haidt argues in his book The Anxious Generation, the steep increase in depression and anxiety in young girls, (aged 8-22), beginning somewhere between 2008 and 2010 corresponds with the mainstream adoption of the smartphone and social media. Increased self-harm episodes, emergency room visits, and suicide rates also spiked around this time in various countries, demonstrating this is not a problem unique to the United States.

Social media has helped spread the lies of feminism along with a new age culture of “self-help,” neither of which seems to have improved women’s mental stability. In a video on Instagram, a 33-year-old Canadian influencer triumphantly celebrates what she calls “decentering” men, proclaiming she feels emotionally and physically “safe” from men. To her, fulfillment equals excessive matcha tea making, sound baths, selling beauty products, and recording videos of herself every day. Her absolute independence is her crowning achievement. She calls marriage a “bad deal for women” despite research that consistently proves that marriage and children increase life satisfaction. Unmarried women have one and a half to two times higher odds of disorders like depression and anxiety. This increased influence among young women will only lead to higher rates of isolation and loneliness.

Women tend to internalize feelings more than their male counterparts. Directing women to consistently focus on how they feel can lead to incessant rumination, a surefire way to increase misery. There is a reason so many religions and spiritual philosophies emphasize civic service and sacrifice as a path to a fulfilled life. Putting the needs of others before oneself is rewarding and offers meaning, particularly in moments of self-criticism and isolation. Shifting focus from the self and toward others is often the panacea for depression. Social media encourages the opposite, and girls are more likely to suffer because of it, with a whole industry profiting from it.

Women Weep, Telehealth Profits

The ease of self-diagnosis, combined with increased accessibility to SSRIs, has led a large number of young women to pursue medical intervention for their problems. Approximately one in four adult women in the United States reported taking at least one psychiatric medication (antidepressants, anxiolytics/sedatives, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, or ADHD drugs) in the past year, according to recent CDC National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data.

Approximately 17 percent of college students (ages 18–25) use psychiatric meds, mirroring wider population trends — and the percentage of female college students taking these meds is likely much higher. Bottom line — adjusting for trends over the past few years — roughly 30-35 million American women are currently on at least one psychiatric medication, with the true number likely closer to 35 million because overall mental-health treatment (including medication) has risen every year since the pandemic (23.9 percent of all adults in 2023).

Telehealth companies like Hers (along with its companion site for men called Hims) make it all too easy. I decided to see just how easy. After some initial questions about how often I felt depressed or anxious, the Hers bot made me feel included and assured me — “Don’t worry — thousands of other women feel just like you!” — securing my status in the depressed woman club. I remember the day when I was determined to not be in that club. After a few more questions, I was just one to two days away from an appointment with an online doctor and meds by mail.

Hers has experienced explosive growth, driven by the Covid-19 telehealth boom, expansion into high-demand areas like weight loss and menopause care, and aggressive marketing (e.g., a 2025 Super Bowl ad that was followed by a 650 percent spike in traffic). Projections indicate the popular telehealth company could contribute more than $1 billion in revenue by 2026, signaling sustained user adoption.

The prevalence of tech and social media has created what feels like an upside-down world for girls and women, where what was once (rightfully) shamed, such as obesity, is celebrated, and what was typically discouraged, like being on a handful of meds, is propped up as a new normal. Simultaneously, a new, unrealistic standard of beauty is being promoted via the influence of women like the Kardashians and the use of GLP-1 medications, which Hers also sells.

It’s a dystopia where the extreme and unrealistic are amplified and reality is tampered, and it’s discordant with the truth of human nature. Social media is antagonistic to raising confident, discerning, and mature young women ready to enter healthy relationships and, potentially, marriage. 

In this inverted landscape, where fleeting digital validation supplants enduring human bonds and pharmaceutical crutches masquerade as solutions, young women are paying the steepest price. An entire generation of women is lost amidst engineered anxiety, chasing hollow independence while forsaking the proven anchors of marriage, family, and selfless purpose. Until society rejects the profiteering illusions of social media and telehealth empires, the epidemic of medicated misery will only swell, leaving countless lives diminished in the pursuit of a counterfeit cure.



Texas Rep. Chip Roy to Introduce Bill That Would 'Freeze All Immigration'


RedState 

As President Donald Trump and his administration have done an amazing job trying to clean up the various messes left behind by Joe Biden, America will be feeling the results of the Biden administration's reckless open borders policies for decades to come. High rates of violent crime, drugs, and human trafficking, and a strain on the American economy have been the result of a mass influx of illegal immigrants into the country. But now, one member of Congress is saying enough and is introducing legislation that would shut all of America's open doors to the rest of the world.

On Thursday, GOP Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21) announced that he would be introducing a bill that would place a freeze on all immigration into the U.S. until rigorous immigration and national security reform is enacted. Roy stated that the bill would halt all types of immigration "until certain objectives are achieved." Roy explained that the bill would address current issues surrounding all forms of immigration into the country, saying:

I've got a bill that I'm going to be introducing that is a freeze on all immigration. Freeze it until we achieve certain objectives--reforming chain migration, ending H-1B visas, getting birthright citizenship dealt with, and vetting people for their adherence to Sharia law.

Roy went on to explain the bill further, adding,

We're dealing with a massive Islamism problem. We're dealing with a massive problem of the advancement of Sharia law. We're dealing with a mass community that is growing up and has no desire to assimilate and come here, to become American and embrace Western civilisation [sic], embrace our Constitution, and embrace our values.

The debate over H-1B visas is currently front and center. My colleague Bonchie recently reported on an interview with Fox News Channel's Laura Ingraham and President Trump. When the subject of H-1B visas came up, things got a little contentious, with Trump saying the visas are necessary "to bring in talent." However, quite often that is not the case. As Bonchie reported, there have been cases of fraudulent visas, and people who are often not as skilled as advertised. 

The bottom line of Roy's bill is the basic lack of assimilation by many groups of immigrants. Those coming into the country and wanting to institute Sharia Law are a problem. A proposed Muslim-only enclave was proposed earlier this year near Plano, Texas, that Republican Gov. Greg Abbott quickly put the kibosh on, and there have been bills in both the House and Senate that would ban Sharia Law anywhere in the U.S. As Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have begun tracking down illegal immigrants across the country, protests against them have ramped up in places like Los Angeles, where demonstrations featured a sea of Mexican flags and those of other nations. 

There is also the ongoing debate over birthright citizenship and whether the children born on American soil to illegal immigrant parents are automatically American citizens. The question has gone before the Supreme Court, but there has been no ruling yet.

America is indeed a nation of immigrants. Our culture is an amazing mix of food, music, and so much more. But one hundred years ago, people from all over the world came to America to become Americans. They remained proud of their heritage, but they were first and foremost Americans. That is no longer happening, and it needs to happen again and be central to the idea of anyone immigrating to America, the idea that you become a loyal American first.

Chip Roy's bill is probably not the "immigration reform" Democrats say they want, and that can only be a good thing.


Burchett Cooks Kinzinger Over Unanimous Consent Vote on Epstein Files


RedState 

As we reported earlier, Republican Rep. Tim Burchett (TN-2) tried to get the Epstein files released under a unanimous consent vote in the House on Wednesday. But he said the Democrats blocked his effort. 

He said they had the files for four years under Joe Biden, and noted that if they had anything on President Donald Trump, they would have dropped it long ago. 

That was on top of another failed effort by the Democrats to smear Trump over the files.


Dems Were Given a Chance to Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is on Epstein Files – Guess What Happened


Then, a former member of Congress, Illinois' Adam Kinzinger – who still identifies as Republican but is fiercely anti-Trump – claimed that what Burchett said wasn't true. 

This isn’t true. It’s performance.  He knows it and is assuming ignorance  

No matter how many southern “gigglity goos” you do doesn’t change the fact

What the heck are a "southern gigglity goos?" Sure sounds like he's trying to sling an anti-southern stereotype there. 

But then Burchett clapped back, with a little schooling for Adam, as our friends at our sister site Twitchy observed.

Hey Adam, great to hear from you. Perhaps you would still be in Congress if you better understood the rules. The Parliamentarian confirmed that Democrat leadership and Republican leadership both had to agree to the UC. Speaker Johnson agreed to it, Leader Jeffries did not, which is why it was ruled out of order. Please visit page 805 of the House Manual for further clarification. Hope this clears things up!

Speaker of the House, Republican Rep. Mike Johnson (LA-4) backed that up and wanted to know why more media weren't reporting this. 

Here's that moment:

CHAIR: Under guidelines...as recorded in Sec. 956, the chair is constrained not to entertain the request unless cleared by the BIPARTISAN floor and committee leaderships.