No Kings and No Intelligence

Townhall 

The mutants were on the march Saturday, or on the street corners, I should say. No, they weren’t hookers, at least in the traditional sense, but prostitutes nonetheless. Democrats came out of their basements, gave their controllers a chance to recharge, and got a little bit of vitamin D from the sun for the first time since COVID. Suckers, all of them.

I can’t imagine a world where I have nothing better to do than go hold pre-printed signs handed to me by “organizers” in a fight against “tyranny.” I have a family and better things to do.

Sadly, so many Americans have never kissed a girl, and never will, so they showed up to their first chance this year to actually talk with one, maybe, who will hand them those printed signs and answer the question every leftist wonders when they go to one of these brainwashing sessions: what is it exactly that “has to go”? 

It’s a valid question, since these morons, their parents, and their grandparents have been “Hey, hey! Ho, ho!” -ing things that have to go since the 1960s, without ever asking why they never went or why, since they’re still around, the long-promised destruction of “our democracy” hasn’t happened yet.

Honestly, the Democrat Party is now a doomsday cult that keeps saying the world will end on Tuesday, then every Wednesday pulls “We meant NEXT Tuesday!”

Their god, Bernie Sanders, is still raising money off these morons. At the “flagship rally” in Minneapolis, the multimillionaire socialist told the crowd, “When historians write about this dangerous moment in American history, when they write about courage and sacrifice, the people of Minnesota will deserve a special chapter for themselves.”

Yes, they will – they produced a whole bunch of idiots who cosplayed as superheroes and got into fights with federal agents, and 2 died. Congratulations? You get a chapter in a book no one will read!

Name a street after that, then you can hold rallies at “Hit a fed with your car” avenue and “Junkie overdose on fentanyl” way. The tourism board for the Twin Cities is already designing the billboards, I’d guess.

I’m not kidding. Bernie told the crowd, “And today, we remember and honor the two brave Americans, Renee Good and Alex Pretti – who lost their lives in the struggle — and we promise their family and friends that these two heroes will not have died in vain. Their sacrifice has inspired, and will continue to inspire, the American people in the never-ending fight for justice.”

That’s the thing about “justice” to the left: you can never get it. You have to be continually “mobilized” and active. It’s a miserable life, but they deserve it.

Without the morons on the ground really feeling like they are “a part of something” for the first time, the people raking in the third of a billion dollars in donations and grants from left-wing “charities” might have to get real jobs. No risk of that.

Maybe Republicans should support the idea of a wealth tax if it targets entities like the Ford Foundation or the Pew Charitable Trust and all the other massive non-profits Democrats use to fund their street art and riot patrols. Seize that wealth, put them out of business, or throw their asses in jail as part of the largest RICO case in history, since these are the funders of violence and riots for the last 20 years.

Bernie concluded that “at a time when billionaires are paying an effective tax rate lower than a truck driver or nurse, we can make certain that the top 1% and large profitable corporations start paying their fair share in taxes. My fellow Americans: The establishment, including the corporate media and many of my colleagues in Congress, want you to believe that you are powerless. They want you to believe that you cannot change the status quo. But that’s a lie.  Throughout the history of our country, when Americans have stood up and fought for justice, they have prevailed.”

Republicans have to prevail against those evil forces once again this fall, then again every fall. The “No Kings” rally may be full of morons and idiots, but they’re right about the need to defeat those who present the greatest threat to our country. They just don’t recognize that it’s them. 

Podcast thread for March 30

 

Spring

Is

In

The

Air

The Victory Option

Townhall 

There are two kinds of people: the kind of people who want to end the Iran War and people who want to win the Iran War. The Victory Option encompasses the goal of the first kind of people because it ends the war, but ending the war is not the proper objective. The proper objective in any war is to win it. Anyone glancing at social media sees people with an absolute commitment to America’s defeat. And defeat comes about only if Donald Trump chooses to quit the war – because the Iranians can’t make us do anything since they don’t have a nuclear bomb, thanks to Donald Trump – in a way that doesn’t achieve victory. Victory means regime change. Once again, remember your Clausewitz – war is simply politics with other means. This is a political struggle. The military aspect is just how it’s being done, not what’s being done.

A victory end-state is one in which Iran is no longer a destabilizing force in the world – note that I said “world,” not just the Middle East. By destabilizing force, I mean the funder of radically jihadi savages all over the world – for example, they blew up a Jewish center in Argentina – as well as enablers of Chi Com mischief by selling Xi oil. They are also a destabilizing force because they seek to be the owners of sufficient numbers of drones and missiles that they can inflict unacceptable punishment on their neighbors. Oh, and there’s the whole nuclear thing. Just imagine Iran with nuclear weapons on top of ballistic missiles. You know, the ballistic missiles they promised they didn’t have, but actually had, since they shot a couple at Diego Garcia? Putting aside all the fatwas the fatheads cite claiming that the ayatollahs had forbidden nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, think about them having Paris and London in hot rock range, with the United States coming soon into the crosshairs as Iran reaches intercontinental capability. That’s when they start dictating to us. Call me crazy, but I prefer we dictate to our enemies instead of vice versa.

So, what we’re fighting for is a neutered Iran, or rather a neutralized Iran, where it stops being an active enemy. It doesn’t have to be a friend. It just has to not be a threat, because they are right now. And that’s one of the things a lot of people on the Democrat side and some of our podcast bros and libertarians misunderstand. Well, they misunderstand a lot of things, but this one’s particularly important. The mullahs hate us and want us dead for reasons that we can’t necessarily comprehend. But the fact that we can’t comprehend why they believe that some missing mahdi requires them to kill us doesn’t mean that they don’t believe that some missing mahdi requires them to kill us. They do. They’ve told us so for 47 years. They’re not out there chanting “Death to America” figuratively. We have real enemies. 

And as American First conservatives, we don’t believe in wishing away enmity because dealing with that reality is inconvenient and clashes with things we’d rather do. There are a lot of things we would rather be doing right now than cleaning out the Iran abscess. We’ve got budgets to cut, frauds to expose, DEI to purge, and illegal aliens – so many illegal aliens – to deport. It would be great to have those things as our sole focus. But, being adults and fans of the first wave Rolling Stones, we understand that you can’t always get what you want.

This was the time to strike Iran. This was the time to win once and for all, to end this forever war by victory. Some people who don’t want victory are mad because they alleged there was no imminent threat. That might be true, in the sense that they hadn’t yet completed building up their arsenal of rockets, missiles, and drones, and they hadn’t finalized their nuclear weapons program. Then the threat would be very imminent, and therefore not subject to the airborne remedy we’ve been applying for the last four weeks. Hit them when they’re weak? When the hell else should we hit them? Is there some sort of Marquess of Queensberry rules we should be applying? When you have a psychotic enemy who wants to murder you because of their false religious dogma, you don’t wait until they have a fair and fighting chance. Kicking them when they’re down is the best time to kick them. And to keep kicking them until they beg to surrender.

Fortunately, Donald Trump understands that. He rejects the idea of half-measures. Can you imagine the pressure that he’s under right now from many within his own coalition to slow down or stop this campaign? But he’s not going to. He won’t give in. He’s putting his agenda at risk, and it is a risk because of the weak-hearted, in order to make America safe again. Oh, and our allies, too. I mean both the useful ones, like the Israelis have proven to be, and the useless ones, like our NATO allies, have proven to be. If you don’t think their leaders in NATO, who are crying because Donald Trump is having an illegal war, which is against international law, to the extent there is such a thing as international law, are not thrilled with the idea of this threat being neutered without them having to offend and aroused their imported third-world, barbarian contingent, you’re not paying attention. But that doesn’t change the level of abuse and harassment from them that Trump is suffering because of this. The Democrats are screaming at him. Some of his coalition members are screaming at him. Foreigners are screaming at him. Everyone’s screaming at him, and he doesn’t care. He doesn’t care because he’s doing the right thing. And he’s strong enough to do it. He’s channeling Winston Churchill, who famously said:

“Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

And Donald Trump will never quit, not till he gets what he wants. And what he wants is victory.

But that’s not what his opponents want. Oh, some opponents will be perfectly happy to have Iran ruined, including the aforementioned NATO allies and many Democrats who understand what a threat these barbarians are. But they don’t want Trump to get the credit. They don’t want Trump to get the glory. Some of them would accept an Iran unbound in order to deprive Donald Trump of the recognition he will earn for his steadfast commitment to ridding the planet of this strategic threat.

The libertarians are just unserious idiots, so I’m not even bothering with them. But there is a contingent of Democrats who are not only upset about Donald Trump potentially getting credit but about America potentially winning. They hate America. They think we’re the problem. They’ll run their mouths about a 1953 coup in Iran as if that somehow gives these turbaned jerks a free pass to butcher our people in perpetuity. These Democrats despise America. They want America to lose. AOC’s preferred end-state is this country’s humiliation and defeat. Ilhan Omar would celebrate America’s loss like she would celebrate her wedding anniversary with her brother. And the only thing that could please Rashida Tlaib more than an American being killed by these Islamic scumbags is if that American was also Jewish.

So, what’s the answer for Donald Trump? It’s easy. It’s the same answer it always is, the same as it has always been through history when fighting a war. It’s to win the war. Victory is the answer. Not ending the war. Ending the enemy. There is no substitute for victory. We didn’t fight to victory in Korea, Vietnam, or even Iraq or Afghanistan. And you know what? That was the problem. You’ve got to win. Fortunately, our president is Donald Trump, and he just doesn’t know how to lose.

Progressing Where?

Progressing Where?

Liberals like to pretend that they are advancing civilization. On the contrary...

Jeffrey Folks for American Thinker 

Liberals like to pretend that they are advancing civilization, moving forward, progressing.  Hence the moniker “progressive.”  But that term raises the question of exactly what liberals wish to advance toward.

The reality is that liberals are not progressing anywhere.  They are engaged in a repression of freedom and natural impulses that is inherently and inevitably authoritarian.  As George Orwell understood so well, the end point of liberal thought is a police state, in which personal freedom is suppressed in the name of some greater good, whether that be social equity, globalism, or some form of ethnic or sex-based equality and reparations.  Liberalism is repressive at its core: It cannot allow a free discussion of its intentions, since that discussion would quickly expose how repressive it is of the very impulses that make us human: the love of freedom, of family, of nation, of local environment, and of God.

In place of these natural human impulses, liberals instill a repression that is always on guard against those who would “fall back” toward being fully human.  The Communist Manifesto is the most succinct statement of progressive principles, and it is the foundational document that underlies the thinking of every modern-day liberal, even those who may not have read it or deny any connection with it.  In their manifesto, Marx and Engels are transparent about what natural behaviors they intend to suppress and how they will do it.

The Communist Manifesto states explicitly that its authors intend to eliminate private property, the family, religion, national ties, and the capitalist means of production, all of which will be taken over by the centralized power of the State.  In Marx’s view, the entire history of human society is a matter of class struggle — in the past between the feudal class and the bourgeoisie, then at the current stage between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.  Given the “fact” that everything is a matter of class struggle, it follows that all aspects of private and social existence must be reclaimed and converted to communal existence controlled by centralized authority.  Even children are no longer to be the property of their parents, but the property of the State, educated in Marxist principles from an early age in State schools.  And given the fact that the bourgeois and proletariat are actually at war, no tactic is prohibited: “By any means necessary” is the slogan of modern-day Marxists and progressives (the same thing), just as it was for Marx and Engels.

The Manifesto is a work filled with hatred and envy, written by a hypocrite who attacked capitalism while he was supported indirectly by the capitalist inheritance of his friend and co-author, Frederick Engels.  Not only was he a hypocrite, but he was widely regarded as having exploited the very sort of worker whom he made the object of his writings — a housemaid named Helene Demuth, with whom, evidence suggests, he carried out an adulterous relationship and had a child out of wedlock, although Marx kept the affair secret and refused to acknowledge the child.

Not only was Marx hateful toward and envious of the system he attacked, but he was entirely willing to resort to force in changing it.  In the Manifesto, Marx writes repeatedly of “seizing” capital and control of the means of production and of the forced transfer of agricultural land to “common ownership,” which is to say ownership by the State.  Marx’s entire system was based on the use of deadly force.  How else would capitalists and landowners, and even small workshop owners, be persuaded to hand over their means of livelihood?

It goes without saying that under communism, very little innovation or entrepreneurial activity would take place.  Why would venture capitalists risk their precious dollars in enterprises only to have them seized by the State?  Marx himself addressed the question of whether communism would make workers “lazy,” but he had no convincing answer other than the whip.

Having read the Communist Manifesto, we can understand the willingness of progressives to sacrifice human freedom — and human life — in the service of their ends.  Pol Pot was the most extreme of 20th^-century communists, though not the most destructive in absolute numbers.  After receiving an education in Marxism in France, Pol Pot returned to Cambodia with the intention of wiping out all vestiges of traditional institutions and thought, just as Marx had proposed, and to do so, he felt it necessary to murder all educated persons — even wearing eyeglasses was grounds for elimination — and of all persons whatsoever over age thirty, since those persons were presumably tainted with anti-progressive thoughts and feelings.

Lenin’s genocide of the kulaks, with an estimated death toll of as many as 600,000, and Mao’s Cultural Revolution, with a death toll of between one and two million, were predicated on similar theories.  Likewise, during Stalin’s Great Purge, between 700,000 and 1.2 million were executed or imprisoned and tortured.  These violent acts were intended to eliminate entire classes of people whose affiliation with liberty, tradition, and capitalism made them enemies of the State.  In every situation where communism has been tried — in Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Vietnam, Laos, and the rest — there has been the same sort of repression, though perhaps on a lesser scale.

But what of “democratic socialism”?  Is it at all different from communism, and does it also repress freedom and humanity?  A good example of democratic socialism is the administration of Clement Attlee, whose Labor Party defeated Churchill in 1945 and remained in power until October 1951.  As prime minister, Attlee nationalized basic industries and expanded government services such as those for health care and housing, though these “services” did not alleviate shortages and only added to crushing government debt and resultant fiscal crises.  One can argue that Attlee’s social assistance programs alleviated immediate suffering, but they did so at great cost to the nation’s long-term growth and prosperity.  No subsequent Labor leader served as long as Attlee, and for good reason.  The British became disillusioned with democratic socialism and eventually returned to a more capitalist style of government.

Similarly, for decades, Denmark was governed as a democratic socialist country.  From1961 to 2024, the Danish growth rate averaged minus 2.9%.  The destruction of economic growth does not merely hit at the pocketbook level; it eliminates opportunities for personal development, choice of health care, travel, education, and satisfaction not available when one is impoverished by high taxes.  Only when Denmark restored a more capitalist economy and the personal freedoms that go with it did the GDP begin to rise, as it did to 6.5% in 2021.  “Far from a socialist utopia, Denmark is moving closer to American-style economic policies,” according to Populist Policy.

More so than Attlee or former socialists in Denmark, Mayor Mamdani of New York City is a self-proclaimeddemocratic socialist, and nearly all of the points Marx and Engels make in the Manifesto are reiterated in his platform, including transfer of essential services such as grocery stores, transportation, housing, and State-run early childhood education.  As for the use of force, Mamdani constantly speaks of wealth taxes and increased income taxes that would transfer capital from private individuals to the State, and of course these would do so by force (the threat of incarceration if not paid).  Mamdani is a wolf in wolf’s clothing, openly proclaiming his ties to Marx despite almost two centuries of failed communist experiments.

It’s time to come to our senses and admit that Marxism in all its guises is destructive and evil.  What Mamdani and others in America are doing may seem like “Marxism light,” but if allowed to continue, it might soon devolve into the nightmare of hardcore communism.

Image: david__jones via Flickr, CC BY 2.0.

T

🎭 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. 

Lyndon LaRouche PAC Notes Importance of Trump Position Toward NATO and Upcoming Xi Summit

Conservative Treehouse 

Three days ago, the Financial Times wrote an article framed around the central thesis of the LaRouche PAC, now branded as Promethean Action PAC.  The FT article accused Treasury Secretary Bessent of structuring a U.S. Federal Reserve policy disconnected from the framework of the U.K banking and finance model; essentially the article said what Promethean has been claiming about the British banking system and President Trump’s intent.

Treasury Secretary Bessent immediately responded saying the article and its claims were false, “There is much to be said about the storied Bank of England, but any recreation of its operating framework on this side of the Atlantic has never been contemplated.”  CTH was waiting to see how the Lyndon LaRouche PAC would react to the Trump administration denial of their central thesis.  As expected, the LaRouche group ignored it.

That said, Barbara Boyd, former organizer of “Students for LaRouche” (SLR), put together a video highlighting some of the recent remarks by Secretary Rubio, Secretary Bessent and President Trump that accurately point out how the U.S. is disconnecting America First policy from the European Union/NATO perspective.   The upcoming summit between President Trump and Chairman Xi will be very interesting to watch:

While the LaRouche team at Promethean Action PAC are good at following the Trump America-First policy outcomes, the LaRouche team are British-centric in all things related to it.   Decoupling the USA from the “special relationship” with the U.K is an outcome of a pragmatic approach toward America First; it is not the intention of the policy.

Lastly, each time a LaRouche PAC video is shared, the promoters of Promethean Action PAC try to obfuscate the relationship.  It is a fact that Susan Kokinda and Barbara Boyd are life-long LaRouche followers and organizers.  A recent tweet shared below will hopefully put this pretending (willful blindness) to rest.

[Twitter SOURCE and Internal Link Source]

The United Kingdom of Great Britain is a shell of its former self.  The City of London no longer has anywhere near the influence being attributed to it and the British monarchy is in a state of freefall.

The bloom is off the ruse.

Perhaps that’s why the PAC had to change vehicles.

However, all of that said, I’m not sure MAGA is prepared to shift support toward Beijing and Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping.  Then again, as long as it’s not the British crown, that’s LaRouche for ya.

Take from the information buffet all the stuff that provides value and simultaneously ignore the stuff that will have you seeing black helicopters following your car every day.

Remember, ultimately a Political Action Committee (PAC) is a fundraising vehicle.

Devin Nunes and Peter Schweizer Discuss Comey, Brennan Subpoenas and Florida Grand Jury

Former House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and author Peter Schweizer appear on Fox News, Sunday Morning Futures, to discuss the latest developments as former FBI Director James Comey and Former CIA Director John Brennan have received subpoenas for testimony in a Florida grand jury.

Much of this discussion focuses on the former Russiagate issue and plays heavily on the desire of Trump supporters to finally see accountability for the corrupt activity that took place in 2016, 2017 and beyond.  Mrs Bartiromo has covered the background details extensively in the past.  WATCH:

How to Keep Your Job When Robots Take Over A deeply unscientific guide to why humans still have a fighting chance against AI.

How to Keep Your Job When Robots Take Over A deeply unscientific guide to why humans still have a fighting chance against AI.

Itxu Díaz for The American Spectator 

A deeply unscientific guide to why humans still have a fighting chance against AI. (Laughing Matters)

Work is a curse, but don’t say it out loud — we’re trying to keep that secret from AI. Making money, on the other hand, is a blessing. And unfortunately, the two are often inseparable. If you’re worried about how to keep earning from your job over the next 10 years, under the looming threat of robotics and AI, this guide is for you. It’s not very scientific, but in this century that has proclaimed “my truth,” “your truth,” and “everyone’s truth,” please don’t get picky about my deeper insights.

Shop assistant. A robot will fold the clothes. A robot will carry the clothes. A robot will ring up the clothes. But a robot will never be believable when I try on a suit, ask if it’s too tight, and the robot assistant has to say, “Not tight at all, it looks great on you, reminds me of Clark Gable.” So, if you’re a shop assistant, your ideal new LinkedIn slogan should be: “I’m a great liar!”

Truck driver. AI might end up driving trucks, yes. But an AI will never be a “real truck driver.” I can’t imagine the robot sipping whiskey in a lonely bar in the middle of nowhere, or blasting Rolling Stones songs out the window, or trying to run over some idiot on the road like in Duel. The fun of being a trucker will remain yours alone.

Storm chasers. People who don’t have jobs can’t be left without jobs.

Nurse. Intelligent assistant robots are very advanced. But as a hospital patient capable of falling in love with three nurses a day, I’ll tell you this: when you’re in pain, or even on the verge of death, you don’t want perfect care — you want a little affection. Your ideal new LinkedIn slogan could be: “I’m a nurse, beautiful, and very caring” (but maybe don’t actually write that on LinkedIn).

Waiter. I’ve been to bars served by robots zigzagging at high speed between tables. Whenever a waiter passes by laden with beer mugs, you feel the urge to trip him, purely out of love for the chaos. But when a robot passes by, that impulse becomes irresistible. I did it this summer, causing a total malfunction — and in return, the robot brought me the empty tray six times. Robots have great memories and, therefore, an infinite capacity for grudges.

Electrician. The profession of someone who can wipe out all robots in the world just by unplugging a cable guarantees survival for centuries.

Hairdresser. No sensible person will ever place their throat within reach of a robot armed with scissors circling their head.

Pharmacist. Someone will have to dispense the mountains of antidepressants and anti-anxiety meds caused by the wave of unemployed the AI revolution will produce. And it’s preferable that the person is flesh and blood.

Gardener. A profession that makes no sense anymore. Any intelligent robot will do it better and faster this year. Yet gardeners will still have plenty of career opportunities in romantic movies. New LinkedIn slogan: “I’m a gardener, I bring you roses in bed with breakfast, and tonight I’m sleeping alone, baby.”

Dentist. For three months, I’ve been reading bombshell news that a group of scientists from China, Japan, or wherever the sun shines too directly, have discovered a drug that regenerates teeth and repairs cavities. Always a lie. The reality: the dentist is the plumber or electrician of your mouth; they will never disappear.

Mechanic. Unless the left manages to force electric cars and scooters on everyone, as long as we use real cars, mechanics will be necessary. And when we don’t need them anymore, they’ll still be needed—someone has to keep the beer flowing in the neighborhood. Journalists can’t do all the work.

Programmer. They will no longer have any useful role in the world of programming. But, as long as robots don’t wear black and have long hair, human programmers will remain indispensable—if only to prevent the heavy metal festival industry from collapsing.

Journalists. Are you asking if a profession that has already disappeared and will have no reason to exist in 2026 will be useful in the next decade? Perhaps, if the journalist isn’t too restless, as a decorative ornament in the OpenAI waiting room.

Mike Rowe Hits It on the Head: Kimmel Didn't Insult Plumbers; He Insulted America's Aspirational Spirit

RedState 

As only TV personality and host Mike Rowe can, he embodied what makes America great. The American Dream is not just about a certain achievement like buying a home or being promoted to a particular vocation: It's about the opportunity to dream big and aspire to higher things — or just different ones.

Of course, Rowe's incredibly insightful commentary, which he posted to X on Sunday, was born from unfunny comedian Jimmy Kimmel's joke that maligned the fact that a plumber — that would be former plumber, former U.S. Senator from Oklahoma, and current Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin — is now heading the agency in charge of combating terrorism. 

Rowe began:

If you haven’t heard, and even if you have, Jimmy Kimmel said this about Markwayne Mullin, former Senator from Oklahoma, and our newest Secretary of Homeland Security:

“We have a plumber now protecting us from terrorism.”

Apparently, there has been some backlash. Plumbers were offended, obviously, as were parents of plumbers, spouses of plumbers, children of plumbers, and millions of people who have had a plumber show up when they needed one. Comedians were also offended, (the funny ones, anyway,) along with a surprising number of terrorists - especially those with access to hot and cold running water. However, in spite of the ensuing kerfuffle, @jimmykimmel doubled down.

Yeah, Kimmel loves to do that, because he knows he's bulletproof. Remember when people called for his job, and two of his syndicators stopped airing his show, after he made those terrible comments about Charlie Kirk's assassination? All Kimmel did was send out the Bat Signal, and his leftist friends in Hollywood cried censorship. Kimmel gave a half-baked fauxpology, then went right back to business as usual: being a terrible comedian, but a great left-wing activist.

Here's how Kimmel doubled down on his stupidity.

“I’m not upset that the head of Homeland Security was a plumber,” he said, “I’m upset that he isn’t still a plumber." He further elucidated by adding, "I wouldn't put a plumber in charge of Homeland Security for the same reason I wouldn't call a five-star general to pull a rat out of my toilet, OK? We all have our areas of expertise.”

Rowe makes a great point on this: Being offended is always a choice, and from my perspective, we live in an age where people think having thin skin is a badge of honor. Rowe is Gen X like me, so insults like this roll off our backs. But Rowe does make the point about what he did find offensive about Kimmel's ignorant opinion.

But I am a tad butt hurt by the suggestion that skilled workers should never evolve into something new, and that competence is somehow limited to one vocation. Obviously, expertise and skill are important. If I need a new kidney, I’d prefer a doctor do the surgery, not a late-night talk show host. But if the doctor in question used to host a talk show, why would I hold that against him?

Exactly. Dr. Ben Carson was a brilliant brain surgeon, but he chose to stop doing that and enter the political space, running for president in 2016, becoming Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Trump administration, and now serving as a special advisor in this second Trump administration. So, is Dr. Carson any less competent at any of these professions because of his choice to aspire to be something different?

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) won her seat in 2018 after working in sales and retail fashion, and then founding her own marketing and event management company that she successfully ran for over 30 years. Blackburn is the first woman to have been elected as a U.S. Senator from Tennessee. That's a huge aspiration, and she achieved it. After winning re-election in 2024, Blackburn decided she aspired to become Tennessee's governor, and if the winds hold, she may just achieve this. So, does Kimmel wish to insult her for moving ably from being a successful businesswoman to U.S. Senator, and now potentially a governor?

He really needs to go sit down. 

Rowe brought his point home with the 2016 presidential debate, when then-Senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio responded to a debate question by saying that "America needed to get shop class back into high schools," and “What our country needs are more welders and fewer philosophers.” 

Rowe continued,

I don’t think the current shortage of welders has anything to do with an overabundance of philosophers. In fact, I think it’s a mistake to promote one vocation at the expense of the other. What we really need in this country, are more welders who can talk intelligently about Aristotle, and more philosophers who can run an even bead. More Generals, in other words, who can fix their own toilets, and more plumbers who can hold a powerful government job.

Amen to that. Then Rowe laid out Mullin's trajectory, something that Democrats and the Left always omit when complaining about his ascension.

This is what Mullin did. He was a private citizen who mastered an essential skill and then turned that skill into a multi-million-dollar company that employed a lot of people and served a lot of customers. That gave him the freedom to do other things with his life, including a career in public service which got him into Congress, where he’s spent the last eleven years doing whatever Congressmen do. Now, he has a very consequential position in the Cabinet of the current administration.

Boom. If anything, Mullin is the embodiment of someone who not only aspires to become more, but also to be a person of agility and flexibility. As the adage goes, "Blessed are the flexible, because they'll never be broken." If Kimmel did finally get fired from his gig, he probably wouldn't know how to pivot to anything new or different. He's a small man, and small people only see their little elitist box.

Rowe brings it home beautifully. It's not about a profession or competence in that profession: It's about the American Dream, a dream that you can continue to pursue until you draw your last breath.

Is that not the embodiment of the American Dream? I get that Jimmy Kimmel might have a problem with Mullin’s politics, but what possible objection could he have about the trajectory of his career, or his desire to do more than one thing with his life?

The only sensible thing to do in the wake of a moment this tone deaf, is remind America that the skills gap is wide, and getting wider. The shortage of skilled tradespeople is now headline news and closing it is nothing less than a matter of national security. This year, my foundation has set aside $10 million dollars to help train the next generation of plumbers, and lots of other essential workers. I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of AI-proof, six figure jobs that don't require a four-year degree, waiting to be filled. The money is currently available to anyone who wants to master a useful skill at https://mikeroweworks.org. Apply today.

As for those of you genuinely offended by Kimmel's comments, consider expressing your disappointment with a modest donation to mikeroweWORKS. Our work ethic scholarship is making a real difference, and your money will be well spent, I promise. The donate button is big and red and hard to miss, at https://mikeroweworks.org

Excellent way to promote the power of aspiration, and how anyone who pursues their dream can always benefit from a little help.

That is what I love about being an American and pursuing my American Dream. My maternal grandmother and grandfather were sharecroppers who decided they wanted to aspire to a better life. Those aspirations took them out of the fields into working the "better" jobs at that time for Southern Blacks: a maid and a bellman. They moved from Tyronza, Arkansas, to Memphis, Tennessee, and then to Chicago, Illinois, joining that Great Migration from South to North that many took during that time because they aspired to something more. I am a product of that aspirational push, and I am always dreaming bigger and reaching higher. While the golden handcuffs of being a software and document specialist in law firms might be fine for most people, I knew from a young age I wanted to be a writer, and through fits, starts, and many detours, that is what I am doing today.

Always aspiring to go higher is what the American Dream is all about. People like Mike Rowe, DHS Secretary Mullin, and I get it. Poor souls like Jimmy Kimmel never will. 

So, That's the Story Behind How a Secret Service Agent on Jill Biden's Detail Shot Himself

Townhall 

The Secret Service continues to make headlines, though not always for the right reasons. In 2024, the agency’s actions, particularly its failure to protect Donald Trump during the July rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, fueled calls for its dissolution. Moreover, there were serious security breaches involving Biden officials. In 2023, a drunk individual entered the home of then-National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, managing to bypass his Secret Service detail. 

And now, an agent on Jill Biden’s detail shot himself in the butt while escorting the former first lady through Philadelphia International Airport on Friday. Susan Crabtree of RealClearPolitics had the backstory: 

New details about the agent who shot himself earlier today while accompanying Jill Biden to the Philly airport.  

The agent was apparently rushing and fumbling around after forgetting his cell phone in the SUV, sources told RealClearPolitics. 

The agent was only one week on the job with the Jill Biden detail. He was in the SUV behind the one Biden was traveling in. He left to accompany Jill Biden through the airport, but soon realized he forgot his cell phone.  

The agent rushed back to get it, and his pistol fell out of the holster and was lying on the seat. He grabbed his pistol quickly and negligently fired it as he was trying to put it back in the holster. The agent shot his butt cheek. He went to the hospital where he is recovering and is expected to be released later today. 

Some stories say he was shot in the leg. Whatever the case, the agent had a Plaxico Burress-like incident, though the former NFL wide receiver didn’t have a holster, so one can see how an accidental discharge occurred during that 2008 circus. Just not a good day for the agency.  

Some of the tweets about it, though, were funny:

The Long Game to End America

The Long Game to End America

The communists’ infiltration plot has succeeded in America. We understand how they did it. It is now our job to fight back.

Jay Rogers for American Thinker 

If you haven’t yet watched Yuri Bezmenov’s 1984 interview with G. Edward Griffin, stop whatever you’re doing and find it.  Not because it’s entertaining, though it undeniably is, but because it reads less like a Cold War relic and more like a leaked strategic planning memo from the faculty lounge.

Bezmenov, a former KGB propaganda officer who defected to the West in 1970, laid out with clinical precision how a free society could be destroyed from within: not through tanks or missiles, but through patience, infiltration, and the slow corruption of institutions.  Four decades later, the progressive left has not merely drifted toward democratic socialism.  It has arrived, unpacked its bags, and redecorated the living room, and is presently debating whether to tear down the load-bearing walls.

Bezmenov described a four-stage process of ideological subversion: demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and normalization.  The first stage he estimated would require fifteen to twenty years, roughly the time needed to educate one generation inside a corrupted academic framework.  By the time that generation reach positions of influence, he warned, no quantity of factual information will alter their perception of reality.  They have been conditioned to dismiss inconvenient truths as hate speech, misinformation, or the ravings of extremists.

We have been living inside that first chapter for the better part of three decades.  I coached high school football and rugby long enough to watch two full generations of young men graduate into exactly the kind of ideological fog Bezmenov described.

Ayn Rand, writing independently and decades earlier in Atlas Shrugged (1957) and The Virtue of Selfishness (1964), arrived at the same destination by a different road.  Rand identified the foundational error of collectivism as the systematic subordination of the individual to the group, of reason to emotion, and of merit to manufactured need.  A society that rewards dependence and penalizes achievement will produce steadily more of the former and less of the latter — civilizational entropy dressed up as compassion.  Where Bezmenov mapped the tactical mechanics of ideological subversion, Rand diagnosed the philosophical vulnerability those mechanics exploited.  Together, they form a complete and sobering picture of how free societies unravel from the inside out.

The term democratic socialism deserves the scrutiny its proponents rarely invite.  Socialism, regardless of the adjective preceding it, carries a historical track record that would embarrass a Little League expansion team.  From the Soviet Union to Maoist China to modern Venezuela, every serious experiment in state-directed economic redistribution has produced the same trilogy: scarcity, corruption, and the particular species of misery that emerges when bureaucrats manage enterprises they don’t understand and cannot abandon.  Appending the word democratic to socialism is roughly equivalent to labeling a questionable food product artisanal.  The marketing improves; the underlying composition does not.

By 2026, Bezmenov’s demoralization stage appears substantially complete.  American universities, once the country’s most energetic arenas of competing ideas, have become ideological monocultures where conservative speakers routinely require security escorts.  A 2024 survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression found that at least a quarter of college students self-censor during classroom discussions fairly often or very often, and over 40 percent of faculty report being likely to self-censor in lectures — a rate higher than during the McCarthy era.  Bezmenov predicted precisely this outcome: a demoralized generation loses the capacity to evaluate information objectively, even when confronted with direct and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The Biden-Harris years provided an extended case study in Bezmenov’s second stage: destabilization.  Inflation reached its highest sustained level in forty years.  The southern border was functionally dissolved as a regulatory concept.  The withdrawal from Afghanistan shattered American credibility with allies and broadcast weakness to adversaries in every time zone.  Meanwhile, the policy positions that defined Bernie Sanders as an unelectable fringe candidate in 2016 became the ideological gravitational center of the Democrat primary field by 2020, underwritten by federal spending at wartime levels and a national debt now exceeding $39 trillion.

The rhetorical architecture of the progressive left follows Bezmenov’s blueprint with precision that feels almost choreographed.  Opposition to border enforcement becomes racism.  Defense of biological reality becomes transphobia.  Skepticism of climate policy prescriptions — note: prescriptions, not the underlying science — becomes anti-intellectualism.  The objective, as Bezmenov described it, is not to win the argument.  It is to delegitimize the act of arguing.  Rand named this technique in The Virtue of Selfishness: the argument from intimidation, defined as the substitution of moral condemnation for logical discourse.  When you cannot defeat an idea, you pathologize the person who holds it.  I have watched this play out in boardrooms, courtrooms, and parent-teacher nights.

Bezmenov’s most chilling observation was that once demoralization is complete, the conditioned population cannot recognize the threat even when demonstrated directly.  This explains the phenomenon that baffles every honest conservative: the ostensibly intelligent progressive who, confronted with Venezuela’s humanitarian catastrophe or the Soviet Union’s documented atrocities, simply recalibrates and insists that the next implementation will be managed differently.  Exposure to authentic information no longer matters.  The conditioning is the education.  At that point, the argument is over.

The antidote to ideological subversion is not a cleverer social media post, a better campaign slogan, or a more photogenic candidate.  It is the patient, methodical rebuilding of the institutions that were subverted in the first place — measured in generations, not election cycles.  The most urgent front is education.  School choice legislation, classical charter schools, and homeschooling cooperatives represent genuine structural alternatives to the ideological pipeline Bezmenov described.  The rapid post-2020 growth of classical education models, driven by parental demand for academic substance rather than ideological fashion, demonstrates that the market recognizes the problem and is already generating solutions.  I have seen this firsthand as a Scoutmaster: When you give young men structure, standards, and something worth building, they build it.

Next, engage local politics with the seriousness it has always deserved and rarely received from the right.  School boards, city councils, and district attorney races are the unglamorous machinery through which cultural assumptions become binding policy.  The progressive left understood this arithmetic decades ago.  Bezmenov’s subversion succeeded because it was disciplined, cumulative, and ignored until it was embedded.  An effective response must share those qualities.  Patience is not passivity.

Finally, articulate a positive vision rather than a purely reactive opposition.  Rand’s enduring contribution was not her critique of collectivism, but her affirmative case for individual reason, achievement, and liberty as the foundations of human flourishing.  A political movement defined entirely by what it opposes will eventually exhaust both its energy and its coalition.  The American founding documents represent a philosophical inheritance of extraordinary depth.  It is past time to treat them as the operational instructions they were always intended to be.

Wayne Gretzky observed that to be successful, you skate to where the puck is going, not where it has been.  Bezmenov defected at considerable personal risk to tell the West where its puck was headed.  Rand escaped Soviet collectivism and built the most comprehensive intellectual defense of individual liberty produced in the twentieth century.  Each was largely dismissed, in his own time, by the audiences most in need of the message.  The progressive left’s consolidation around democratic socialism is not a correction or a passing fever.  It is, as Bezmenov described, the predictable terminus of a process executed with decades of institutional patience.

Neil Peart observed that if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.  Bezmenov gave you the warning.  Rand gave you the philosophy.  What remains is the will to use them.  That part was always on us.

Image: JSMed via Pixabay, Pixabay License.