What Kind of Caesar Will Trump Be?

American  Thinker 

It’s not often that life gives nations real second chances when it comes to the big things, but in America’s case, it did.  My only hope is that we don’t squander it...or to be more precise, I hope Donald Trump doesn’t squander it.

The 2026 midterms are less than a year away.  That makes what Trump does in the next six to eight months monumentally important.  The bottom line is, does he want to be consequential or just well known?

Julius Caesar is easily one of the best known men in history, but was he really that consequential?  The truth is, no.  We know more about Caesar than any other Roman not because he changed the world, but because he was a genius of propaganda and wrote prodigiously — and well — about his exploits.  The reality is, Caesar was just another Roman general, albeit a great one, caught up in a century of internecine wars among men seeking to control the Republic.

Augustus, his adopted son, who is far less well known in history, was far more consequential, having transformed the Republic into an empire that would arguably last another 1,500 years.

Is Donald Trump going to be Caesar or Augustus?  Is he going to be a president who rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic and simply slows down her eventual collision with the iceberg?  Or is he going to steer her through the treacherous waters and bring her out safely on the other side?

When Trump won re-election last November, I was certain that after enduring eight years of what is easily the most vitriolic abuse any American politician had ever endured, he was going to return to Washington, and metaphorical heads were going to roll.  Indeed, he ran on the idea of destroying the Deep State.

Now, a year after the election, I’m not so sure.  Though I applaud most of his moves on immigration, particularly his recent move to cease all immigration from third-world countries, there are two elements that cause concern.

One is his support for the H1B visa program.  If there are jobs that can’t be filled by Americans, then bringing in foreign workers who have the necessary skills makes sense for keeping American industry productive.  But that’s not what’s happening.  Hundreds of thousands of foreign workers, primarily Indians, are being brought in to supplant American workers whom companies would generally have to pay more to keep or hire.  There is no shortage of American STEM workers; there are merely trillion-dollar tech, consulting, and other companies who simply want to bolster the bottom line by paying foreign workers lower wages.  Sadly, Trump defends the program virtually every chance he gets.  Add to that his allowing half a million students (or spies) from Communist China to remain at American universities, and one begins to wonder whose payrolls Trump’s advisers are on. 

Another area where Trump has not met expectations is taking on the leftist cabal that brought the nation to the brink of disaster over the last decade.  From Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton and the army of anti-American traitors who worked against Trump, his allies, and the American people, Trump should establish a task force with the specific purpose of investigating every single member of the government or NGO and every financier who had anything to do with Russiagate as well as the coup-cover-up of 2020 and the resulting J6 persecutions.

Americans know what happened.  We watched it in real time.  Molly Ball crowed about it in TIME magazine, we read about it in Mollie Hemingway’s Rigged, and later we followed as Emerald Robinson pulled string after string...but what we don’t have, and need, is the entire case of the treachery laid out in black and white, and then to see the guilty tried and punished.

As we all learned in the OJ trial, juries can’t always be trusted, but at a minimum, the information should be laid out for the American people to see so that they can vote accordingly.  The recent arrest of the D.C. pipe bomb suspect and Kash Patel’s announcement that it was based on information the FBI sat on for four years tells us that the information is there; it just takes an administration with sufficient courage to expose it. 

Hand in hand with allowing that treachery to go unpunished is the fact that Trump has not put his shoulder into ensuring the passage of the SAVE Act.  Indeed, New England, which is about 40% Republican, has 21 House seats, and 100% of them are Democrat.  That’s not good.  Democrats win by cheating.  Period.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act would require voter ID and proof of U.S. citizenship and outlaw most mail-in voting.  Strong-arming Congress, which the GOP theoretically controls, into passing SAVE would do more for saving the Republic than almost any other thing Trump could do.  If Trump wants to maintain GOP control over Congress and have any chance of fixing the country, he needs to fix the voting system now, because we know that the second the SAVE act is passed, there’s an army of treacherous federal judges who will seek to derail it.

This brings us to the last critical issue: the Judiciary.  Since 2015, federal judges across the country have acted as the rear guard for the Obama plan of “Fundamentally transforming the United States of America” into a leftist nirvana.  From nationwide injunctions to throwing out cases to seeking to exercise executive power, the federal judiciary has become untethered to the Constitution.  The traditional way such overreach is addressed is that cases make their way through the appellate process, and SCOTUS may or may not eventually rectify the problem.  But that system breaks down as a viable solution when fast approaching elections that decide the direction of the government are concerned.  Congress must act to address this judicial overreach. 

As such, Trump should work with Congress to utilize their Article III powers to fix this.  I’d suggest two possible avenues: 

1. Congress abolishes the entire Judiciary below SCOTUS and remakes it as a far more limited and constitutional Judiciary.

2. Congress sets up a separate parallel federal court channel that would deal exclusively with election- and executive power–related issues so they can be argued in a timely fashion and be resolved long before they become moot.

Decades from now, Donald Trump is going to be remembered.   The question is, will he be remembered as a celebrity president — who attracted a great deal of attention and simply slowed the collapse as the nation calcified into a failed dystopia driven by big government and big spending — or is he going to be remembered as an heroic, mythic figure who fought back the leftist tide and put America back on firm, limited-government, constitutional footing, giving her a real opportunity to survive another 250 years?

I guess we’ll see.

Entertainment thread for Dec 13

 

Most festive I've felt in, a few days.

Guess the key is: Have favorite Christmas movies belting out really loud.

Leftists Choose Censorship Over Debate

American  Thinker 

People often advise me not to engage in debate with leftists because there’s simply no point: Their beliefs are too dogmatic for their minds to be changed. Although I believe rational debate is like a healthy supply of water for any society, I understand the sentiment. It is incredibly difficult to find points of agreement with our political foes when they prefer to scream in our faces and call us “fascists” rather than listen to arguments that might weaken their positions.

Take the immigration issue. Why is it “racist” of me not to want hundreds of thousands of Somalis, Haitians, or Afghans to move into public housing right next door but “colonialist” or “imperialist” if a hundred thousand Americans take over Somalia, Haiti, or Afghanistan? Why am I “deplorable” for calling those places “sh*thole countries” when natives with the means to escape are fleeing their homelands as quickly as possible? Must I really pretend that third-world nations are every bit as luxurious and stable as most of the United States?

This whole “pretending” nonsense bothers me greatly. Are we not adults? Are we not capable of expressing our thoughts and debating each other without having to participate in wild fantasies just to avoid “hurting” someone’s feelings? Compared to all of human history, our present obsession with “feelings” is a total aberration.

“Feelings” aren’t just a luxury problem. They’re the kind of problem that could exist only in lazy, welfare-dependent societies in which a majority of the population believes the government should hand out “free” food, medicine, and shelter. When most of your country is obese, men are too busy playing video games to get married and provide for their children, and people believe they are “entitled” to burn down Walmart unless the Treasury refills their EBT cards, “feelings” become a big issue. People too busy earning enough to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves don’t have time to get angry about the newest list of words deemed “politically incorrect.”

“Politically incorrect” is a commie idea. It’s a rhetorical weapon meant to make it impossible for certain speakers to win public debates. When you can’t mention uncomfortable facts, those facts effectively disappear. People inclined to support freedom generally do not tie one hand behind their backs when debating ideas. In fact, freedom-minded individuals tend to push the limits of any discussion because vigorous debate and contentious arguments have a way of breaking down cognitive presuppositions. People who like to learn often defend untenable positions in order to grapple with sophisticated counterarguments and solidify the foundations of their own convictions. When leftists start censoring what can be said out loud because the contents of the debate are “politically incorrect,” they treat adults like children and leave society the dumber for it.

Perhaps because westerners have grown tired of “political correctness” lectures these last few decades, leftists now use government power to target “hate speech” and “misinformation.” Europe has gone all-in on prosecuting citizens for the “crime” of communicating “hate.” Again, talk about luxury problems. Can you imagine someone trying to make a living a century ago having enough time or energy to care about what or whom his neighbors “hate”?

If you don’t like what someone says, walk away. If you don’t like what someone believes, don’t hang out with him. These are basic playground rules that humans learn at an early age. Only leftists grow up to decide that -- akshually -- the best way to handle a difference of opinion is to obsess about it, scream at the “hurt feelings offender,” and use the criminal justice system to shut the bad people up!

On the playground, young members of the “feelings police” used to receive a wet willy or wedgie as a gentle encouragement to mind their own business!Unfortunately, junior members of the “feelings police” grew up to take control over Western governments and now want payback for all those saliva-moistened fingers inserted into their ears and tightened underpants raised up to their necks. 

Let’s be honest: When you look at Starmer, Macron, Merz, and Queen Ursula von der Leyen, don’t you see a quartet of socially awkward kids who probably excelled at being tattletales?

Adults don’t fear so-called “hate” or “misinformation.” If information isn’t true, the answer isn’t to censor it. The solution is to advance truthful information and to counter what is false. If an argument is biting, callous, or offensive, the answer isn’t to lock up the speaker as a thought “criminal.” Occasional outbreaks of “hurt feelings” are the necessary cost of safeguarding free speech.

Make no mistake: When governments award themselves the power to decide what is “hateful” or “false,” they do not limit their purview to racial slurs and fringe beliefs. Instead, they quickly move to criminalize opposing viewpoints as forms of “hate” and political dissent as “misinformation.” This absolute slipperiness of government censorship’s slippery slope is why so many Western nations have made it impossible for Christians to practice their faiths publicly without risking prosecution. It is why “climate denialism” is adjudged every bit as “dangerous” as Holocaust denialism. It is why illegal immigrants are encouraged to wave the flags of foreign nations, but patriotic Westerners are condemned as “bigots” for waving the flags of their own countries.

Healthy societies embrace healthy debates. Unfortunately, it is difficult to debate leftists when they outlaw all debate.

Shutting Down the 'Fourth Branch'

American  Thinker 

During the oral argument over Trump v. Slaughter at the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan got seriously exercised. “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government!” Trump’s solicitor general, John Sauer, wisely declined to respond. She went on. “Where else have we so fundamentally altered the structure of government?” Indeed. The 1934 Humphrey’s Executorcase did exactly that as the New Deal got into high gear during FDR’s reign.

The Constitution defines three, not four, branches of government. Article I defines all the bits and pieces about the legislative branch. In particular, Section 8 lists the things that Congress is allowed to do. Section 9 lists a potful of things Congress isn’t allowed to do. All these serve the purpose clause in Section 8, which declares that the list of enumerated powers are to provide for the common defense (for all the U.S.) and general welfare (for allcitizens). Nowhere does it create a carve-out for people below a given income level, in a particular industry, or above a particular age.

Article II defines the Presidency, and Article III creates the Supreme Court. Ultimately all the Inferior Courts are defined by Congress, and Congress even gets to tell the Court that it can’t rule on this or that. Articles IV-VII deal with other subjects, and don’t create any more branches of government.

The Necessary and Proper Clause (last clause of Article I, Section 8) gives Congress the power to do things that aren’t specifically listed in order to get the other stuff done. But the leftist Justices seem to want that language to allow Congress to do things that aren’t in the list of enumerated powers, ignoring the elephant in the room.

The key issue in Slaughter is the President’s right to fire Executive branch officials at will. Congress took that away with the creation of “independent agencies” that aren’t accountable to anyone. “Expert agencies” don’t answer to anyone, and Humphrey’s Executor wrote that in stone, ignoring the Constitution. This is the key protection for the Deep State. (And will probably go away, 6-3.)

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 states “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The Constitution goes on to require the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It doesn’t say that “independent agencies shall execute the laws.” That means that if Congress says that, “the President can’t fire the administrator of X agency without specific cause,” the President can completely ignore Congress. All Executive branch agencies are answerable to the Boss and no one else, because it’s exclusively his job to make sure the government follows the law.

You read that correctly. The Take Care Clause actually means that the President is obligated to ignore a statute limiting his power to fire some apparatchik if he thinks that bureaucrat isn’t doing his job the way the President thinks it should be done. Justice Kagan thinks this is awful. But the Constitution trumps Congress and any “independent agencies” it creates. When Congress created agencies with special protection from the President, Congress ignored the Constitution in an attempt to set up a completely unaccountable fourth branch of government. But Donald Trump not only has the constitutional power to get rid of the Swamp dwellers in the fourth branch, he has the duty to take care that the Constitution is observed. And therein lies the rub.

Those congressional abortions are a witch’s brew of interacting and overlapping functions. They invent federal power over pretty much everything. The agencies exert their power by writing rules that mimic Jabberwocky and then assess fines via Star Chamber courts where the agency that wrote the rules becomes judge, jury, and executioner. If an employer looks crosswise at an employee, the National Labor Relations Board will come down hard on him. But where does the Constitution give Congress the right to regulate labor? The Tenth Amendment leaves that power with the states. And where does it give Congress the right to tell a farmer which crop he can grow? Ditto. I could go on, but the enumerated powers cover taxation, borrowing money, regulating actual interstate commerce, naturalization, coinage, Post Offices, patents, courts, piracy, the military, the militia, and governing D.C. That’s the entire list. The examples I gave aren’t in the enumerated powers or implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause. Creating agencies for those ultra vires actions isn’t constitutional. Making them off-limits to the person the Constitution gives plenary powers really is a bridge too far.

When Trump wins in Slaughter, it’s likely that Humphrey’s Executor will be overruled. This means that the President will be able to fire anyone and everyone. As he said on The Apprentice, he likes to fire people. And when he fires lots of people, a potful of government programs will disappear because there will be no one to run them. And that will make a huge number of Democrats so sad. What will they do if they have to actually do productive work? And think of the money we’ll save!

And this brings us back full circle to the elephant in the room. The Department of Education is just the starting place. There’s no constitutional warrant for the Fed getting involved in education. (Go back and read that list.) We can argue that paying GI Bill education benefits is just another part of paying for the military, but the rest is out of bounds. And somehow we all got educated without D.C. bureaucrats meddling with our local schools. In other words, we will almost certainly not even notice when all those programs and agencies vanish into the ether.

A congressman’s Prime Directive is to “Do something!” Joe got a hangnail. Fix it with a government program. And on and on. Unless a President is willing to stand up and say “No!” Congress will make lots of laws to do things that the Constitution prohibits. And those wastes of taxpayer money will likely stay on the books because no one will have “standing” to challenge them in Court.

Fortunately, we have just such a President, and our VP is likely to keep the ball rolling when he is elected in 2028. But we still need a Congress that is willing to do something constructive by tearing down the administrative state. The Democrats may be the evil party, but so far, the Republicans have largely continued to be the Stupid Party.

🎭 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. 

Europol Pinpoints When Skynet-Like Human Resistance To AI Could Emerge

 

by Tyler Durden

Saturday, Dec 13, 2025 - 12:15 PM

If Goldman's estimates of a partial or full displacement of up to 300 million jobs across the Western world due to the proliferation of artificial intelligence and automation are even remotely correct, a new report suggests that by 2035, society could face widespread public resentment, protests, and even acts of sabotage directed at robotic systems.

A new report by Europol, the EU's central intelligence and coordination hub for serious crime and terrorism, identifies around 2035 as a potential inflection point at which a human resistance movement against AI could begin to take shape, in a scenario that echoes the resistance to Skynet in the Terminator film franchise.

Europol warned of "bot-bashing" incidents and acts of sabotage against robotic systems in the middle of the next decade, as the spread of AI and robotics could fuel a populist backlash against technologies that have hollowed out parts of the Western economy and left millions unemployed.

Here's a section of the report:

By 2035, service robots have become a fixture of daily life across Europe, gliding silently through shopping centres, delivering parcels to fifth-floor flats, and cleaning public transit platforms by night. While many citizens have grown used to their presence, nodding politely to automated crossing guards or receiving prescriptions from pharmacist bots, frustration simmers beneath the surface. In economically strained regions, displaced workers protest outside automated warehouses, chanting slogans at tireless machines behind reinforced glass. A spate of "bot-bashing" incidents in city centres, ranging from graffiti to targeted arson, has prompted debates about "robot rights" and the psychological toll of widespread automation. In this uneasy climate, even minor malfunctions, such as a hospital care robot administering the wrong medication, are magnified into national scandals, fuelling populist calls to "put people first."

Law enforcement now finds itself caught at the intersection of technological adaptation and social tension. Police officers investigate crimes by robots—such as drones used as tools in theft or automated vehicles causing pedestrian injuries—and against them, including sabotage, tampering, or hate-driven destruction. As AI and robotics replace routine policing tasks like patrolling or traffic management, some departments face internal pushback from officers who fear obsolescence or diminished purpose. At the same time, the rise in economic dislocation caused by automation has contributed to an uptick in cybercrime, vandalism, and organised theft, often targeted at robotic infrastructure. Agencies are under pressure to both modernise and humanise—balancing the efficiency of unmanned systems with public trust, and equipping officers not just with new tools, but with new roles in a society where “protect and serve" increasingly applies to both humans and machines.

Today, the growing adoption of robotics by various industries and sectors means that more and more members of society will be exposed to, and interact with, this technology. While an increased frequency of encountering different types of robots in everyday life may lead to greater familiarity and acceptance, there is a risk of societal alienation, frustration, and resistance towards robots. These reactions can be the result of robotic malfunctions leading to unintended harm (i.e., crashing autonomous taxis or service robots in hospitals), or simply disapproval of their very existence (i.e., nuisances caused by drone flights or surveillance concerns linked to police patrol robots).

Our view is that Europol's 2035 prediction of "bot-bashing" has already been pulled forward. One could argue that an early incident appeared on X in 2023, when groups in San Francisco attacked driverless cars. And why stop at bashing automated systems? Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has already warned about the risks of data center sabotage.

For the sake of humanity, let's hope Goldman's 2023 report forecasting 300 million layoffs across the Western world never materializes. Otherwise, human resistance movements against robots will emerge. To mitigate such a populist revolt, we suspect central banks and governments would respond by unleashing universal basic income. It is likely inevitable.

The 2030s do not sound fun.

Small Details Help Understand Big Picture Politics

Conservative Treehouse 

There was a rather disposable and brief discussion that surfaced during the Patrick David Bet podcast that helps to frame perspective on the current state of U.S. UniParty politics.  Normally, this interview segment wouldn’t be of much value; however, given the specifics of the names involved and some confusion about alliances and allegiances there is something to be remembered.  This interview is a good reminder.

John Morgan is the head of a massive law firm based in Florida.  As a strong democrat Morgan was one of Barack Obama’s biggest bundlers in the state.  Many high-profile lawyers including current Attorney General Pam Bondi and current HHS Secretary RFK Jr have worked for and with John Morgan.  This is why the best advice is to stay emotionally detached from reliance on these people.  At the core of everything it’s the money that matters.

In this interview John Morgan, a man of generally horrid character and disposition, highlights some of his influence in state, regional and national politics; giving details about the relationships he holds.  It’s a good reminder of exactly how the UniParty operates when contrast against the forces opposed to President Trump.  WATCH:

Two US soldiers and interpreter killed by IS gunman in Syria, US says

 

Two US soldiers and a US civilian interpreter have been killed in Syria in an ambush by a lone Islamic State gunman, the US military has said.

Officials said three other service members were injured in the attack, during which the gunman was "engaged and killed".

The identities of those killed are being withheld for 24 hours until their next of kin have been informed, the US Central Command said.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said: "Let it be known, if you target Americans - anywhere in the world you will spend the rest of your brief, anxious life knowing the United States will hunt you, find you, and ruthlessly kill you."

The ambush occurred in Palmyra, located in the centre of the country, according to Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell. 

 

 

They added that initial assessements showed the attack was likely to be carried out by the Islamic State group.

Syria recently joined an international coalition to combat IS and has pledged to co-operate with the US.

Last month, President Ahmed al-Sharaa met with Donald Trump at the White House in a visit that the Syrian leader said was part of a "new era" for the two countries.

The global coalition is aimed at eliminating the remaining elements of the so-called Islamic State and stemming the flow of foreign militants to the Middle East.  

 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9d9vpxjp2go

 

 

Your Blood Will Run Cold When You Hear How Many Afghans With Terror Ties Were Welcomed Into US by Biden

RedState 

In a Friday morning appearance on Fox News' Fox & Friends, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard said the Biden administration had let more than 2,000 Afghan nationals with terrorism ties into the United States in the wake of the 2021 botched Afghanistan withdrawal. The startling number was revealed just weeks after two members of the West Virginia National Guard guarding the streets of Washington, D.C., were ambushed – one died of her injuries and the other is still in the hospital recovering – by an Afghan man who was brought to the U.S. as part of Biden's Operation Allies Welcome program.

According to DNI Gabbard, however, many of these Afghans now residing in the country aren't our allies, even if they did once work alongside our troops.  She revealed that 100,000 poorly-vetted Afghans came to U.S. after the withdrawal, and of that number, "there are at least 2,000 who are known or suspected terrorists."

And that's just the ones we know about. As Gabbard pointed out, millions of unvetted foreign nationals streamed over the southern border during the Biden administration, so we're looking at untold numbers of Islamists and persons with terrorist ties of all kinds lurking in our communities.

Those numbers come via the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which is part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Joe Kent, NCTC's director, has been sounding the alarm "over the Biden admin’s policy of importing people hostile to our nation," and told a Thursday meeting of the House Homeland Security Committee that the suspected Guardsmen shooter did not undergo rigorous vetting before he and his family were brought to the U.S.

"The individual was vetted to serve as a soldier in Afghanistan, and that vetting standard was used by the Biden administration as a ruse to bring him here," Kent replied. "Had we followed the Standard Operating Procedures for special immigrant visas, that individual and none of the (others) ... would have come to America. That's on Joe Biden."

(It was at this hearing that Democrat Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS-2) made his now-infamous "accident" blunder when talking about the ambush on the Guardsmen. As RedState's Rusty Weiss reported, Thompson was so riled up that he called the shootings an "unfortunate accident," when we all know it was an entirely avoidable tragedy that would not have occurred had the Biden administration made the safety of Americans its number one priority.)

DNI Gabbard also revealed that the NCTC, along with its partners in the FBI and DHS, are "revetting every single one of these individuals." She added, "We know that Al Qaeda and ISIS continue to actively plot attacks against our homeland."

The news of the "revetting" apparently scares those who worked to bring so many Afghan nationals into U.S. communities. "So what I'm actually worried is that they're just going to use this as an excuse to go back through and look at people in a different light than that is actually required by law," remarked Shawn VanDiver, the president of resettlement group #AfghanEvac. VanDiver added, "And we know 100% for sure that they were all vetted."

The cleanup on Aisle Biden continues. 

Trump Is Right About the Countries We're Importing People From and Democrats Know It

RedState 

President Donald Trump has a talent for the brutally honest, and one day, his honesty brutally struck at some of the countries that we're importing people from. 

"Why is it we only take people from sh**hole countries?" he asked. 

Naturally, the blues went into a rage spiral with virtue signal responses galore. I'll spare you the list, but I'll give you the reaction from the Democrats' X account, which simply called Trump's words "Disgusting bigotry." 

Disgusting bigotry pic.twitter.com/pb7DLeCgWx

— Democrats (@TheDemocrats) December 10, 2025

Is it disgusting bigotry, though? 

I was blessed by the Lord our God to be born in the United States of America, and the greatest state in the nation, Texas, to boot. My culture is one based on a fear of God, hard work, Southern manners, and the idea that if you decide to do our families or us any harm, we'll shoot you... politely. This has created living conditions that exceed most of the globe in quality. 

Our women are free to pursue education, careers, and speak freely. Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth of social justice grifters, ours is a state where everyone is free, and opportunity isn't limited to your race, sex, or status at birth. Our streets are largely clean, and our sanitation is pretty top-notch. Our freedom-based model allows for opportunities to flourish, and it's not uncommon for someone with nothing to become a massive success thanks to our capitalist system. 

This can be said for a lot of the United States. Our country is objectively better than other nations, and in many cases, it's not even close. Yeah, some other countries may exceed in ways ours doesn't (for instance, Japan is pristine and peaceful thanks to their culture of respect), but all in all, the United States is the best country in the world. Bar none.

In fact, it's so great that we live in a constant state of abundance. Our system largely encourages meritocracy through its economic system, and as a result, we create wealth in excess. 

And this is largely one of the reasons the left feels it's a moral obligation to import people from disadvantaged places and bring them here to share in its abundance and take part in the great experiment. It'd be a really great virtue to have... if they actually had it. 

For some reason, the left believes that America isn't a great country. They think it's filled to the brim with racism, sexism, homophobia, selfishness, shallow materialism, bigotry, and right-wing extremism. One of their grand solutions is to force diversity and inclusion on everyone where possible, and this means a lot of importing people from countries that run counter to America's values. They think this will somehow temper America and bring it into greatness. 

Or that's what they want the useful idiots to believe. 

The truth is that they want to fundamentally reshape America into a leftist vision of Utopia, and that generally involves tearing down traditions, long-standing systems, and, of course, the dissolution of its Judeo-Christian influence. 

And here's where Democrats need to be cornered and forced to answer some very serious questions. 

For instance, the left seems to believe that Somalia is a paradise. Yeah, it has breathtaking landscapes, but it's also dominated by warlords who kill indiscriminately, women who are treated as second-class citizens, and suffers so much starvation and disease that even Gavin Newsom would say it's a bit much. 

What part of that do Democrats think is better than the United States? Is it terrorist suicide bombings and beheadings of innocents, including peace activists? Is it the decades of civil war, corruption, and human trafficking? What part of Somalia is so great that we need to adopt some of its qualities here in the States? Why should we bring people who profess to hate the United States here from a place like that? What are Democrats hoping to gain from it on a societal level? 

What about Haiti? Do we admire its violent and corrupt warlords and human rights abuses? Do we import Venezuela's violent drug and trafficking gangs because they would bring a diverse culture to strengthen our own? 

What is it that the Democrats so admire about these countries that are clearly filthy with atrocious people? What is it that Democrats are hoping they'll bring here based on what these countries produce? 

Democrats need to answer these questions because I'm sick of watching as these blessed inclusions to our nation work to tear it down from the inside. 

U.S. Govt Agency Verifies that Nine Large U.S. Banks Conducted Ideological Debanking Operations

Conservative Treehouse 

The United States Office of the Comptroller for the Currency (OCC) has delivered the preliminary results of an investigation into large U.S. banks and the practice of “debanking” customers based on ideology. [PDF HERE]

Between 2020 and 2023, the OCC found that JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., U.S. Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp., PNC Financial Services Group Inc., Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Bank of Montreal, all maintained policies that restricted legal companies from access to banking based on the “values” of the bank.

According to the OCC report, “these nine banks made inappropriate distinctions among customers in the provision of financial services on the basis of their lawful business activities by maintaining policies restricting access to banking services or requiring escalated reviews and approvals before providing certain customers access to financial services.”

Press Release – […] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released preliminary findings from its supervisory review of debanking activities at the nine largest national banks it supervises: JPMorgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo Bank, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank, and BMO Bank.

The OCC conducted its supervisory review in accordance with the President’s Executive Order “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans” to determine whether these institutions debanked or discriminated against any customers or potential customers on the basis of their political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities.

“The OCC is committed to ending efforts – whether instigated by regulators or banks – that would weaponize finance,” said Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould. “Although our work continues, the OCC is today providing visibility into the debanking actions against customers and lawful businesses taken by the nation’s largest banks to ensure public awareness, and to halt these harmful and unfair practices.”

The OCC’s preliminary findings show that, between 2020 and 2023, these nine banks made inappropriate distinctions among customers in the provision of financial services on the basis of their lawful business activities by maintaining policies restricting access to banking services or requiring escalated reviews and approvals before providing certain customers access to financial services. For example, the OCC identified instances where at least one bank imposed restrictions on certain industry sectors because they engaged in “activities that, while not illegal, are contrary to [the bank’s] values.” Sectors subjected to restricted access included oil and gas exploration, coal mining, firearms, private prisons, tobacco and e-cigarette manufacturers, adult entertainment, and digital assets.

The OCC’s findings confirm that these or similar policies and practices were in place at each of the banks reviewed. In a reaction to the observations Comptroller Gould stated, “It is unfortunate that the nation’s largest banks thought these harmful debanking policies were an appropriate use of their government-granted charter and market power. While many of these policies were undertaken in plain sight and even announced publicly, certain banks have continued to insist that they did not engage in debanking. Going forward, the OCC will hold banks accountable for these actions and ensure unlawful debanking does not continue.”

This review was first announced by the OCC in September 2025. While the OCC is releasing preliminary findings, its work continues to better understand the full extent and effect of these actions and their impact on affected industries and the American economy. The OCC is also still reviewing thousands of complaints to identify instances of political and religious debanking, which it will report on in due course and as appropriate. (LINK)

The six-page report identifies several industries that faced uphill climbs securing banking services, including oil and gas companies, cryptocurrency firms, tobacco and e-cigarette manufacturers, and firearm companies. The OCC said that many of these banks had publicly disclosed relevant policies, often tied to environmental, social and governance goals.

The report also found some banks adopted heightened reviews for potential customers based on negative coverage in the media.

The OCC will complete their investigation and could send recommendations to the DOJ requesting prosecution.