Saturday, April 11, 2026

Democrats Are Killing the Country with Racism


Wayne Allyn Root — businessman and ebullient, unapologetic conservative — wrote something the other day that caught my eye.  Over an article about “The Great American National Divorce,” his headline blared: “Escape of the White People.”  Describing the exodus of New Yorkers to Florida and Californians to Nevada, Root noted that interstate migration across America is speeding up.  Why?  Because Americans who are not die-hard leftists “can no longer live with radical, extreme, self-destructive, communist SUICIDE BOMBERS.” 

As Root repeatedly points out, Democrat-run states are destroying themselves.  By electing “evil, communist madmen like LA Mayor Karen Bass, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, and NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani,” Democrats have ensured that their cities “will soon collapse and drown in a sea of crime and debt.”  For decades, Root argues, white Americans have left Democrat-controlled cities primarily to avoid rising crime and crippling taxes.  Now they are leaving because Democrats have put targets on their backs.

White Americans, Root writes, are “sick of being the target of Democrats and government; they’re sick of being attacked and demonized; they’re sick of being a piggy bank to pay for everyone else’s bills — in particular, the costs for welfare, food stamps, housing, public schools, healthcare, police, courts, and prison bills for millions of illegal aliens.”  They are sick of absurdly high taxes; Democrats’ “woke” culture; and Democrats’ insistence on welcoming and subsidizing “every transgender weirdo, every illegal alien criminal, and every radical Muslim who hates America, Jews, and Christians.”  They are sick of Democrats’ overt discrimination against white Americans; the “massive crime wave; defunded and demoralized police; dumbed-down schools that brainwash your children to change their genders; drug dealers on every corner; homeless tents, pee, poo, and drug needles on sidewalks; and cities that look like 3rd-world s-holes.”  White Americans, Root concludes, have been pushed too far.

As if to prove Root’s thesis correct with several exclamation points, NYC mayor Mamdani just unveiled a new “racial equity plan” “to solve decades of neglect and discrimination.”  Mamdani claims that his administration must take money from white people and hand it to non-white people in order to make up for “centuries of disinvestment in black and brown New Yorkers.”  The mayor’s “Chief Equity Officer” and “Commissioner of the Office of Equity and Racial Justice” — a Ugandan-born, Indian-descent radical socialist named Afua Atta-Mensah — promises “to confront institutional and systemic racism within our city and to begin the work of dismantling it.”  So a couple of foreigners have taken over New York City, call it “our city,” and are now robbing white Americans because of the color of their skin.  They’re proving Wayne Root right in real time.

Lest any readers mistake Root’s analysis as an intentionally dreary diagnosis permitting him the opportunity to propose a future cure, he has no good news to report.  He says the “national divorce” has arrived.  White people who don’t enjoy being victimized must escape Democrat-run hellholes before it’s too late.  For Democrat states, “the end is near.  The collapse will be fast and ugly.  Get out now, while you still can.”  Root is willing to say out loud what others will only whisper.

For Americans over the age of forty, this racial balkanization within the United States is particularly tragic to witness.  Despite stubbornly persistent civil divisions, the post-WWII decades brought white and black Americans steadily together.  Even after race-motivated murders repeatedly threatened to tear the country apart, “the better angels of our nature” somehow managed to carry us to better days.  Several generations of Americans took Martin Luther King, Jr.’s exhortation to heart, when he dreamed that his “four little children” would “one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  So many white and black Americans have held those words dear.

Nearly sixty years after MLK’s assassination, though, we’re right back to judging Americans by their skin color.  For millions of Americans who have watched old racial wounds steadily heal from one decade to the next, it is heart-wrenching to see Democrat political leaders dividing white, black, and brown people into “equity” pots “deserving” of disparate treatment.  Voters who constitute the Democrat party have preferred to call themselves “progressives” for most of the last century, but there is nothing “progressive” about dragging the country back to a time when skin color mattered more than anything else.  It is particularly galling that foreigners such as Mamdani and his “Chief Equity Officer” — who despise America’s rich heritage and history — are in positions of power from which they can ignore America’s great triumphs while exploiting past injuries to divide and conquer Americans today.

We’ve heard the Democrats’ drumbeat of division for so many years now.  In the late ’90s, it seemed as if “affirmative action” programs and other unconstitutional race-based preference systems in the United States would finally come to an end.  Although white Americans had tolerated these discriminatory programs for several decades as grudging recompense for the perceived harms endured by previous generations or abiding deference to MLK and his “dream,” the discordance of fighting discrimination by embracing discrimination appeared inherently and irrevocably unjust.

Instead of allowing the nation to fully heal by recognizing the election of President Obama as the culmination of centuries of real progress for Americans of every race, the Democrats redefined their brand of “progressivism” to require only more kinds of racial preferences and new kinds of discriminatory quotas.  The systemic racism of “affirmative action” programs morphed into the systemic racism of “diversity, inclusion, and equity” programs.  As Democrats found overt examples of racism more difficult to identify, they conjured out of thin air the new hobgoblin of “white supremacy.”  Democrats refused to discard the discriminatory mindset of judging children by the color of their skin; in the name of “progressivism,” they still insist that a person’s skin color determines everything.  

Democrat mayors, governors, and presidential hopefuls now explicitly tell us that they will never stop taking from white people in the name of false “justice.”  They will never stop dividing Americans by skin color.  They will never just treat all of us as “unhyphenated Americans,” as the late, great Lloyd Marcus used to call himself.  

Marcus believed that “we are ALL Americans” and therefore do not need “racial modifiers to define us.”  “Is there racism in America?” Lloyd rhetorically asked.  “Absolutely, along with every other sin in the heart of man!  Is there enough racism to stop anyone from achieving the American Dream?  Absolutely not!  America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet.”

If only the Democrat party would stand for that!

If only the next generation of Democrats weren’t so committed to defining American children by the color of their skin.  If only those foreigners who have been lucky enough to become naturalized American citizens showed more respect for our country, its history, its achievements, and our people’s perseverance.  If only Democrats could progress beyond the worst racial impulses of the past.  Americans should dream, work, and pray for that.


Podcast thread for April 11

 


have a life outside of here, pls.

Understanding Where We Are In Iran And How We Got Here


The war is not over by a long shot, but there’s a window open to a resolution. President Trump’s temporary truce with Iran is only the next stage in what promises to be a high-risk, high-reward endeavor if a final agreement is to be reached. Many readers historically don’t pay enough attention to the dynamics unfolding in Iran, Israel, and the Middle East. Those who don’t, for reasons of either disinterest or because they don’t believe there is a long-term solution, are witnessing a pivotal moment for all Americans. President Trump, the last President many thought would engage in a major war, had his hand forced.

This is not a skirmish; this is a war with major geopolitical consequences that has the power to set America on a course for continued prosperity across multiple domains or, if we fail to thread the needle, to close off vital interests and advantage our enemies for the foreseeable future.

Iran is at a fork in the road, and Donald Trump is the one who put it there. Even as late as last week, Iran had no intention of negotiating with us. What changed was a recognition of Donald Trump’s force of will and that Iran’s strategy of deceit, drawing negotiations out, and most importantly, waiting us out, allowing America’s internal and external naysayers to do their dastardly work of undermining America’s will to prosecute the war to completion, is not working fast enough. Iran’s leaders believed Trump’s pronouncement that he would end their society in a lightning-fast four hours of utter destruction. We could do that.

Trump’s dilemma is that the best minds all agree that after killing at least 40,000 of their own people in the February uprising, the people may not have either the appetite (or the ability) to overthrow the IRGC, which today is the real power, not the theocracy at this moment. If we make a deal, it’s up to the IRGC to decide to take it, not the clerics, though some may dispute me on this.

Currently, the sticking point is that both sides define victory differently. You can pick any number of Democrat doomscrollers in and out of office who will tell you that Iran is winning, not us. They’re wrong, but there is nuance here: President Trump fell through the rabbit hole, and, frankly, others did as well. The central failure is that the two sides define victory differently. For us, we think of victory as well…as President Trump expressed—surrender. But for Iran, victory means survival. Everything Iran does reflects that reality.

Iran’s original, pre-war goal centered on nuclear weapons that would checkmate the West and make Iran the only hegemonic power in the Middle East. In essence, they wanted to be like North Korea and dare the West (or the Sunnis, for that matter) to screw with them. They believe, likely rightly, that the Americans and Europe will not challenge a nuclear-armed Iran, especially once Iran had mastered miniaturizing a nuclear weapon and put it on a missile that could reach Europe and eventually the U.S.

We have stopped that ambition cold, and the Iranians know it. Trump will be remembered for all time as having acted before it was too late. That should get his likeness plastered on his own mountain, not just added to Mt. Rushmore. Americans underestimate why we needed to act when we did and what it will mean to them for generations to come.

One month of fighting is nothing in the history of U.S. warfare. Other conflicts have been measured in years, not weeks. This conflict may not be over, but it’s closer to the end than the beginning because the rules of engagement for our side are vastly different this time, and we’re dealing with an enemy with vulnerabilities that a bunch of tribal or even semi-modern warlords can’t match. The big deciding difference is money!

Iran would be of little importance and would not have the ability to threaten, except that it has oil and the money that gives it the power to cause mischief. Even the Strait of Hormuz would not be an issue if Iran were powerless to buy the armaments that threaten passage goers. Cut the money off, and Iran dies.

Estimates suggest that Iran could keep essential services running, pay salaries, and purchase essential imports for at best, three to six months with cash on hand. After that, the country begins to devolve quickly without reliable, massive oil revenue.

One other factor, in combination with not letting Iran sell oil, is that the U.S. and Israel could drop their electric grid overnight, and the Iranians know this, too. The combination of those two factors would trigger a rapid decline in civil and military authority, leading to almost certain regime change. So, why don’t we do it?

  • We don’t know who will become Iran’s next leader.
  • A short-term consequence would be extremely high oil costs that could trigger a recession in the West and put Democrats in office.
  • There is a lack of consensus that Iran is the existential threat to civilization that it is in Washington.
  • The cost in human suffering for Iranians would be too high
  • Lack of will

The nature of war has changed for the West. If you look at Europe, they’ve convinced themselves that war is passΓ© and have therefore stripped their collective militaries of the ability to wage war in favor of social benefits. Putin’s expansionist moves in Ukraine have challenged that belief. Yet Europe has not put itself on a war footing; instead, it has decided to pull out its checkbook rather than mobilize.

You can point to various efforts to increase readiness, but it’s not nearly serious enough. All the proof you need is to view how Europe treated America in our current fight with Iran. Europe acted as if it had a choice on who and how to support Israel and America. They chose wrong. I expect that the folly of their actions will result in several European leaders being shown the door as the reality of their position becomes obvious to all.

Iran has not surrendered and won’t surrender in the traditional sense. They believe that their defense in depth (tunnels, redoubts, defense industrial base, etc.), alongside their willingness to accept catastrophic losses that the West won’t accept, will see them outlast the forces arrayed against them.

We must take away their belief system that undergirds all other strategic and theocratic doctrine. Send them back to the Stone Age if necessary (it likely will) and give Iran the chance to reconstitute itself as a nation of industrious, storied people who can join the ranks of other good nations.

The essential nature of war has not changed. You must destroy the will of your opponent, or they will break yours.

God Bless America!


On the “Green” Gravy Train

On the “Green” Gravy Train

John Hinderaker for Powerline

I think most people have figured out that many scientists and activists are on the “green” gravy train. After all, there are trillions of dollars at stake, and money is no object. But most do not understand that many utilities have teamed up with climate alarmists to promote expensive and unreliable wind and solar energy. Why would utilities do that? Because they make lots and lots of money from “green” initiatives.

Energy Bad Boys is a substack run by my former American Experiment colleagues Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling. The linked post is by my former colleague Sarah Montalbano. This group mostly comprises Always On Energy Research, a dynamic consulting firm that, among other things, analyzes the costs 0f energy projects.

The linked post addresses the case of Xcel Energy and Colorado. It is long and detailed, and if you want to understand why America has largely pursued irrational energy policies in recent years, you should read it all. I will try to excerpt a few paragraphs that convey the point. See the original for numerous links:

In a startling report submitted to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Xcel Energy admitted that it will likely be in a “capacity deficit”—-which is a nice way of saying its system does not meet its reliability requirements—-from now until at least 2028, unless it keeps its Colorado coal plants open.

One almost feels bad for the predicament the company finds itself in, and we may even have a brief glimmer of admiration for its willingness to bluntly highlight the issue, but then we remember:

* In 2018, Xcel became the first investor-owned utility to declare its self-imposed environmental, social, governance (ESG) goal of making its system carbon-free by 2050;

* It has a history of giving thousands of dollars to climate groups like Fresh Energy in Minnesota and Western Resource Advocates in Colorado, and working with them to push for the closure of its coal plants and decarbonization mandates, and;

* Xcel lobbied in favor of the carbon-free electricity mandates passed in Minnesota and Colorado.

Furthermore, when we look at Xcel’s most recent investor presentation, we see that the company is practically giddy about all the ratepayer money it will spend on wind, solar, and batteries, which will increase its rate base and, in turn, its corporate profits.

This is a key point. In order to maximize profit, investor-owned utilities need to make capital investments, on which, if those investments go into the utility’s rate base, it is guaranteed a return of principal and a healthy profit. It is a great business model, especially if you can lobby a state legislature to impose mandates that will guarantee that “green” expenditures–being required by the state, after all!–will go into the rate base.

The problem is that, however profitable they may be, wind and solar can’t keep the lights on. So Xcel has now admitted to the State of Colorado that if they want reliable energy, they are going to have to rely on coal:

Further into the report, it states that, “Near-term, the most likely capacity solutions are continued extensions of existing units—namely, Comanche Unit 2 and, to a lesser extent, the Hayden units.” Additionally, regarding repairing and restarting Comanche Unit 3, Xcel found “that the incremental cost to replacing Comanche Unit 3 would be magnitudes more expensive for customers than” restarting the facility, and that “there are no reasonable alternatives to returning Comanche Unit 3 to service.”

Comanche Station in Pueblo, Colorado, includes coal-fired Comanche units 1, 2 and 3. I know a great deal about Comanche 3, perhaps the last coal-fired plant Xcel will build, not because of energy policy issues but because its construction resulted in a lawsuit in which my team and I represented Xcel. The case was brought by the principal prime contractor on the billion dollar-plus project, and it was one of the largest cases I tried, as we sent damage claims of $200 million to the jury. It was the biggest case tried in Colorado in 2010. It is ironic that Xcel and the State of Colorado now contemplate a premature shuttering of that relatively new power plant, although, as Xcel now says, Colorado had better keep it open if the state doesn’t want blackouts.

Greenism works great for activists and utilities, but not at all well for the rest of us–those who use electricity–as this chart shows:

There is a great deal more at the link, but that, I hope, at least conveys the gist. Hats off to the crew at Always On Energy Research for bringing solid data and a dose of common sense to debates over energy policy.


🎭 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. 


WaPo Thinks SCOTUS Upholding The Constitution Is A Bad Thing


In his new article, Washington Post reporter Justin Jouvenal attempts to convince readers that SCOTUS has waged a war on ‘civil rights.’



The unspoken competition among legacy media outlets to see who can produce the most asinine propaganda is pretty fierce this week. On top of a debunked hatchet job involving the Pentagon and Vatican, The Washington Post decided to throw its hat in the ring with a particularly dumb hit piece of its own — this time, against the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a Thursday article titled, “Supreme Court remade by Trump ushers in historic defeats for civil rights,” Post reporter Justin Jouvenal attempted to convince readers that the court’s conservative justices have waged an all-out war on “civil rights” in “cases involving women and minorities.” Naturally, he attributed this to “President Donald Trump’s three appointees” — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — who he said have “remade” the court to be “sharply conservative.”

“The court has also entered a new era of extreme partisanship. None over the past seven decades has been as starkly polarized,” Jouvenal wrote in melodramatic fashion.

The entire premise of the piece is based on an “analysis” by Washington University and Penn State professors, who, after reportedly examining 270 of the court’s decisions from 2020-2024 and a Supreme Court database they maintain themselves, concluded that “the share of cases won by the side advocating an expansion of civil rights fell to 44 percent” since Trump’s appointees joined the court. “In all the other time periods going back to the early 1950s,” Jouvenal wrote, “the Supreme Court issued rulings in favor of expanding civil rights in a majority of such cases.”

So, how exactly do Jouvenal and the study’s authors determine whether SCOTUS is “rejecting” or “expanding” so-called “civil rights” in any given case? Going off the decisions provided by the Post, it seems the (unsurprising) answer to that question is based on whether the court’s decision gave leftists the outcome they wanted.

As examples showcasing what he portrays as anti-“civil rights” decisions, Jouvenal cited the Supreme Court’s 2025 U.S. v. Skrmetti and Mahmoud v. Taylor rulings, which upheld a Tennessee law prohibiting harmful “trans” procedures on children and parents’ right to opt their children out of school lessons promoting LGBT ideology, respectively. He further referenced a 2023 decision (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis) shutting down LGBT activists’ attempts to force a Christian web designer to create websites for same-sex weddings.

Jouvenal introduced the rulings by writing, “In recent terms, a number of the civil rights cases before the court have involved protections for gay and transgender people, and in most cases, the court has ruled against them.”

The Post “reporter” went on to ominously warn that the high court seems “poised to go further” during its current term. He specifically noted a recently released decision in which the court ruled against Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy” for minors. Conveniently, Jouvenal declined to mention the ruling was 8-1, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joining their conservative colleagues in siding against the Democrat-run state.

But it’s not just the Supreme Court’s upholding of Americans’ free speech, parental rights, and protections for children that the Post clearly takes issue with. The outlet also tried to characterize the court’s 2023 decision (SFFA v. Harvard) ending racial discrimination against white and Asian Americans in college admissions as “par[ing] back civil rights,” and deemed its recent rulings upholding Americans’ religious freedoms as “striking.”

Jouvenal finished his diatribe seemingly lamenting the court’s production of proper jurisprudence after Republican presidents have sought to replace moderate and left-wing justices with originalist ones. In doing so, he concluded that the analysis “shows a court of ideological extremes, with increasingly dug-in factions of liberals and conservatives.”

There’s two key points to be made about this ridiculous hit piece.

For starters, any “study” that purports to classify “civil rights” in the way this one reportedly did is an absolute joke. And the same goes for any “news” outlet moronic enough to give it oxygen.

Under the Post and Co.’s “civil rights” standards, racial discrimination is OK as long as it’s against races that don’t check the left’s “victimhood” box; stifling speech is OK as long as it’s speech the left doesn’t like; and infringing on religious liberty is OK as long as it’s against faithful Christians.

And don’t forget decisions upholding laws protecting children from trans-obsessed psychos seeking to mutilate their bodies with destructive surgeries and chemicals. That’s apparently anti-“civil rights” too.

Secondly, the notion that the Supreme Court’s conservative justices and their jurisprudence are “extreme” is utterly laughable.

In many of their majority decisions, the court’s conservative justices are interpreting the Constitution and laws as they were written at the times they were written (that is, originalism). In doing so, they’re not haphazardly inventing new legal rights out of thin air the way past Supreme Courts have done (see Roe v. Wade and the made-up “right” to abortion).

In running this “analysis” and adopting the framing it did, the Post has shown it is clearly upset that Republican presidents have gotten better at picking SCOTUS nominees. Not solely originalists, but those who also recognize the proper role of a judge in the American system of government.

With leftist control of the Supreme Court out of reach for the time being, the Post and its fellow media propagandists are doing to the conservative justices what they regularly to do all their perceived political enemies: lie, smear, and lie some more. After all, that is what they do worst of all.


Canada Poised To Criminalize Christianity With Ban On Citing Biblical Truths


The only way to understand the purpose of Bill C-9 — and other Christian persecution in the West — is to frame it as a hostile pagan religion imposing its will.



Leftists may claim that they work for the common good, but what really drives them is often nothing less than religious fanaticism.

Case in point: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and his new anti-Christian bill (C-9). Not content with the current hate speech laws in force in Canada, Carney is pushing stricter restrictions on speech with a new law that would prohibit using religious texts as a defense of speech the left deems offensive. According to a report in The Telegraph, “Bill C-9, the Act is a wide-ranging piece of legislation aimed at targeting what Carney’s government claims is ‘rising anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and transphobia.’”

Already, Canada punishes citizens like Derek Reimer, who called drag queen story hour events “pervert grooming sessions,” with fines and jail time while assigning mandatory training to public intellectuals like Jordan Peterson who refuse to use preferred pronouns. Presumably, they will apply these punishments to the more polite protesters who quote the Bible as their reason for disapproving of sexual fetishists and predators reading to young children. According to the minister of Canadian identity and culture, he just could not, as The Telegraph put it, “understand how the concept of good faith could be invoked in quoting such passages.”

It should go without saying that Bill C-9 will do absolutely nothing to help anyone feel safer. Although some Muslims have raised objections to the new bill, no one really believes that any Canadian resident will face legal punishment for referencing the Quran or Hadiths for rejecting transgenderism. Rather, as a protected class, Muslims will face no legal repercussions for their beliefs and can even legally charge any Christian daring to criticize the Muslim faith with Islamophobia.

Nor will Bill C-9 do anything to remedy Canada’s moribund economycrumbling welfare state, or expanding culture of death. Bible-thumping Christians aren’t the ones facilitating mass migration from the Third World, nor are they the ones capping oil wells and giving away vast swathes of valuable land to the descendants of the country’s indigenous tribes, so punishing them won’t help. On the contrary, they represent what’s left of Canada’s dwindling middle class

Perhaps Carney’s making a political move that will fetch him and his party more support. But while this might have made sense 10 years ago during the golden age of wokeness, such reasoning seems ridiculous now. True, many Canadians voted for Carney in the last election in order to spite Trump, but this lamentable inferiority complex held among these Canadians is not the same as full-throated support for heaping additional punishments and stigmas onto outspoken Christians.

No, the only way to understand the purpose of Bill C-9, as well as other instances of Christian persecution in the West, such as the conviction of Juhana Pohjola and Paivi Rasanen in Finland, is to frame it as a hostile pagan religion imposing its will. In their quest to realize heaven on earth and do penance for their sins against marginalized groups and mother nature, crazed zealots in the leftist elite have turned Christians into scapegoats. On a deep pre-conscious level, they sincerely believe that they can balance the cosmic scales of justice by punishing old church ladies and conducting systemic genocide against the sick, elderly, and unborn. 

Far from heralding an enlightened age that brings the world together in harmony and a singular pursuit of progress, today’s leftist leaders are intent on ushering in an irrational and fractious society fixated on personal grievances and tribal identity. In their mind, this cacophonous, anarchic state will eventually bring about true equity, which will then result in peace and abundance. Once that happens, all divisions will disappear, and the nihilistic ideals of John Lennon’s pop song “Imagine” will manifest themselves all over the world.

Of course, none of this is ever clearly articulated or even consciously known, but rest assured, it is internalized. In ancient Greece, many such spiritual proclivities could only find expression in esoteric tragedies where characters represented universal types, ineffable divine forces determined the sequence of events, and certain primal longings and spiritual transformations made up the core of the whole performance. Those who understood the ideas behind these tragedies were initiates in mystery cults that extolled pagan myths as deeper truths about the universe, and those who did not understand these ideas nevertheless accepted them as authoritative.

In the modern West, leftism has become the new pagan mystery cult, transcending rational arguments and basic reality. Instead of celebrating the mysteries through tragic plays or ritual sacrifices, leftist leaders use propaganda and political oppression. Quite naturally, those who dissent or oppose the mysteries are sublimated into metaphysical concepts (that is, Christians are deplorables, Trump is an agent of chaos, the Western tradition is the destructive order of the Titans, and so forth), which thus renders the fight against them a fundamentally spiritual act.

Thus, to those outside the leftist mystery cult, so much seems contradictory, counterproductive, and often deranged. To the chosen ones inside the cult, it is necessary and just.

Unfortunately, once this brand of leftism comes to rule a country, as it has in Canada and Western Europe, civilizational ruin is sure to follow. It’s worth noting that for all the classic dramas that were composed in Athens during its golden age, the city still fell to the primitive Spartans hardly 50 years later. Moreover, its people converted to Christianity a few hundred years later when the mysteries celebrated by Aeschylus were made real in the God-man Jesus Christ. As G.K. Chesterton argues in Everlasting Man, not only was Christ a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies, but He was also a fulfillment of the pagan myths.

This is why today’s left continues to wage a war on Christians and all things deriving from Christianity, specifically natural law, human dignity, and basic sanity. In their view, the Christian gospel and those who live by it threaten their vision of an equitable utopia purged of all hate and hierarchy.

For this reason, Christians must prevail and save Canada and the rest of the leftist West. They must speak out, calling out the lies and distortions, even if it means suffering unfair persecution. Their fight is much more than a set of policies or the next election. It is a fight for the very soul of humanity, and failure is not an option.


Unveiling The Hidden Truth About Illegal Aliens And Crime

Unveiling The Hidden Truth About Illegal Aliens And Crime

The Democrats have done their best to hide the data, but it is possible to use available information to extrapolate just how bad illegal alien crime is.

Autism article image

Allen J. Feifer for American Thinker 

The Democrats have done their best to hide the data, but it is possible to use available information to extrapolate just how bad illegal alien crime is.

Every day, all over America, illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and naturalized Americans from a rogue’s list of countries to our South and from the Middle East kill, rape, rob, and defraud us, almost with impunity. Yet, if you try to prove it by citing reliable government statistics, you can’t. The left works hard—it may be its most important job—to ensure you can’t find out exactly how bad things really are across America.

The bottom line: almost no states or the federal government track crimes using reliable indicators of someone’s country of origin, immigration status, or citizenship status. To the extent that states do, information is spotty and irregular. Only one state, Texas, keeps comprehensive records...only one! (Thank you, Governor Abbott!)

And, if you guessed that blue states not only don’t collect such data, but have created laws to ensure that information is not collected, you would be correct. Several Democrat-led states and localities have laws or official policies that restrict asking for, collecting, or sharing immigration or national-origin information for most public, state, and local government purposes. Notable examples include California’s SB 54 (the California Values Act), New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust/Privacy Protection laws, and statewide/local guidance in New York; many other blue states have statutory or policy limits on participation in federal immigration programs.

Recently, moments after being sworn in as Governor, Virginia’s Abigail Spanberger’s first act was to reverse all policies that former Governor Glenn Youngkin had enacted on a range of immigration and cooperation subjects. Her statements were masterclasses in duplicity, promising to enforce the law, even while making it impossible for Virginia law enforcement to do so because ICE detainers are administrative, not judicial:

I have full confidence that Virginia law enforcement agents are keeping Virginia safer when exercising their authority under Virginia law.

[snip]

And, importantly, any time there is a judicial warrant in hand, state and local law enforcement should be, and the expectation is, they should be cooperating with any other law enforcement agencies that might need their assistance.

By stating this and through other Executive Orders, Spanberger wasted no time in returning Virginia to its status as an aggressive and repressive sanctuary state, effectively favoring non-citizens over citizens. Recent high-visibility incidents in Virginia that involve illegal aliens include Old Dominion, the Fairfax bus stopstabbing, the stabbing death of a 3-month-old, and a machete murder. There are more, but it’s hard to dig most of them up due to the limitations previously mentioned.

But, what if there were a way to tabulate an approximation, imperfect, but a starting point to achieve a national number? Obviously, the left wants to ignore this possibility because it would likely drive people into the streets in a furious demand that the carnage stop by reversing policies that are intended to obscure data and encourage the veritable war on traditional America.

We’ll extrapolate official Texas numbers and see where that takes us—Data and Assumptions:

  • Texas population (July 1, 2024): 31,290,831.
  • U.S. population (2024 estimate): 340,110,988.
  • Texas share of the US population: 31,290,831/340,110,988\approx 9.20% of the country.
  • Texas DPS cumulative DHS-matched counts (June 1, 2011–Feb 28, 2026): homicide 1,123; assault 78,122; robbery 3,394; sexual assault 7,629. These are charges tied to DHS-identified non-citizens.
  • Time window length used: June 1, 2011 → Feb 28, 2026 ≈ 14.75 years.
  • Calculations (method: proportional extrapolation)
  • Sum Texas violent charges used: 1,123+78,122+3,394+7,629=90,268.
  • Extrapolate to the US by population share: 90,268/0.09197\approx 981,500 total extrapolated US charges over the same period.
  • Per-year estimate: 981,500/14.75\approx 66,600 violent-offense charges per year nationwide (DHS-matched non-citizen charges, estimated).
  • Category breakdown (rounded)—Offense Texas cumulative Extrapolated US cumulative Estimated per year: Homicide 1,123 ~12,200 ~828 / year Assault 78,122 ~849,300 ~57,600 / year Robbery 3,394 ~36,900 ~2,500 / year Sexual assault 7,629 ~83,000 ~5,600 / year (Totals match rounded to ~66,600 violent, non-citizen crimes per year nationwide

Of course, some states will have lower illegal alien crime rates (e.g., Vermont) but that will be offset by those that have high rates, such as California, New York, etc.

A note about my calculations:

Bad enough at over 66,000 violent non-citizen crimes annually, these numbers are likely greatly understated. Why? First, my numbers spanned 15 years. The Biden presidency greatly upped the tally of non-citizens, and we are naturally experiencing greater numbers of non-citizen violent crime today than 15 years ago. Second, the number of non-citizen crimes is understated because authorities cannot always confirm someone’s non-citizen status. Lastly, and this is a big one, these stats are based on arrests. A significant portion of criminals go undetected and unarrested.

Most reported violent offenses do not result in an arrest; nationally, roughly 60–65% of violent offenses are not cleared by arrest or exceptional means (i.e., not “cleared”) in recent years—about 63% not cleared in 2022 and 58% not cleared in 2020. If one adds that into the assumption, our 66,000 number rises to at least 150,000 murders, rapes, and violent assaults annually.

But wait, that’s not the end of this horror show guaranteed to make you ill! We are not even beginning to count the non-violent crimes, scams, thefts, and petty crimes committed. No one seems even to want to make a guess, but it’s got to be hundreds of thousands of crimes by non-citizens each year. Just look at Minneapolis and Los Angeles, where immigrant fraud is rife.

All of us are paying for this financially, socially, and personally, as every American reading this is a victim in some way, whether it’s the cost of credit due to fraud, higher taxes than they would otherwise be, the loss of someone close to us, or, for some, even being afraid to walk our streets.

One other group for which no statistics exist: naturalized Americans who go on to become (or already were) criminals. The numbers here are also staggering, and the fact that too many government agencies won’t collect the relevant data is a crime in itself.

Can you imagine the outcry if we really could quantify the cost in actual murders, economic destruction, and the resulting loss of emotional wellness due to non-citizen crime? It would force change almost overnight, as if waking up from a nightmare. The hue and cry for immediate reform would expose the leadership of every major city in America, leaving no room for misinterpretation about how bad non-citizen criminality has become. Spare me the fake numbers of crime having been vastly reduced. NYC cops don’t arrest violators anymore; they’re too afraid of Mamdani! Police are on defense, almost everywhere in America, afraid to do their jobs.

This could be the wake-up call for Americans to take to the streets demanding accountability and change.

God Bless America!


Image created using AI.


Several Members of Eric Swalwell Team Quit as Women Step Forward to Outline His Sexual Assault History


It was building in the background for several weeks; the stories of multiple women who had been raped and sexually assaulted by congressman Eric Swalwell.

Yesterday, the San Francisco Chronicle began outlining their stories [SEE HERE], and now an exit of people from his campaign begins.

WASHINGTON DC – Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor was reeling Friday after an ex-staffer accused him of sexual assault, with multiple staffers resigning and both a prominent ally and rival candidates calling on the California Democrat to exit the race.

The exodus, which began just before the San Francisco Chronicle published a report detailing a former staffer’s claims, jolted California’s marquee race just weeks before ballots start landing in voters’ mailboxes. The former staffer told the newspaper that Swalwell had sexual encounters with her while working for him, and that he sexually assaulted her twice when she was too drunk to consent.

In September 2019, the woman said, Swalwell invited her out for drinks and she became so severely intoxicated that she does not remember the rest of the night. She said she woke up naked in Swalwell’s hotel bed and could feel the effect of vaginal intercourse. {source}

Top staffers departed the campaign shortly before the story published. Soon after, Rep. Jimmy Gomez said in a statement that he was stepping down from the campaign and urged Swalwell to leave the race — a stunning rebuke from a key surrogate who had helped introduce Swalwell to power players in Sacramento, where Gomez served in the state Assembly.

“Today I learned shocking information about Eric Swalwell containing the ugliest and most serious accusations imaginable,” Gomez said in a statement. “My involvement in any campaign begins and ends with trust. I cannot in good conscience remain in any role with this campaign, and I am stepping down from it effective immediately.”

The fallout extended to prominent interest groups that had backed Swalwell. The California Medical Association, which has dropped more than $1 million into a pro-Swalwell committee, said it was convening an emergency board meeting. The California Teachers Association suspended its endorsement. (read more)


'Palestinian' Activist's Appeal Denied, Path to Removal Now Clearer


RedState 

The United States is one step closer to being rid of "pro-Palestinian" activist and agitator Mahmoud Khalil. On Thursday, the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Khalil's appeal to drop his deportation case. A final order of removal has been issued. That, as the saying goes, would seem to be that.

An immigration appeals board has denied Mahmoud Khalil’s latest bid to dismiss his deportation case, a largely expected ruling that brings the former Columbia University graduate student and Palestinian activist one step closer to re-arrest and possible expulsion.

The Board of Immigration Appeals issued the final order of removal on Thursday, according to Khalil’s lawyers.

The board’s rulings are not public, and an inquiry to the US Department of Justice was not immediately returned.

Khalil said he was not surprised by the ruling, which he called “biased and politically motivated.”

Well, the ruling may be biased in favor of enforcing our immigration laws. While at Columbia University, Khalil was a significant figure in pro-Gaza, pro-"Palestinian" protests, which were largely seen as undermining U.S. foreign policy. At the time, Khalil was in the United States on permanent resident status, which status was revoked by the Trump administration in 2025.

There's just one catch:

His attorneys said he cannot be lawfully detained or deported as he pursues a separate case in the federal court system.

It appears his federal case isn't going much better.

Khalil suffered a significant setback in his federal case earlier this year, with a US appeals panel ruling the judge in New Jersey overstepped his authority by releasing him.

In a 2-1 decision, the panel found that law requires the case to fully move through the immigration courts before Khalil can challenge the decision in federal court.

Khalil’s lawyers are requesting the full appeals panel reconsider the decision.

Earlier this month, they asked one of the appellate panel’s judges to step aside because of his previous role as a top Justice Department official involved in investigating student protesters.

It appears that Mahmoud Khalil won't be going anywhere soon, but it's beginning to look like the result will have him on an airplane bound for someplace that isn't here.

This entire episode serves to point up some very interesting distinctions in how the left and the right view immigration policy, at least in broad strokes. The right, in this case, the Trump administration, seems to view immigration as something that must be done through legal channels, and which should only seek to bring in people who 1) wish to become Americans, and 2) will be an immediate and significant access to the country's economy. The left, on the other hand, seems to view immigration as a door thrown open wide to all and sundry, who are welcome to taxpayer-funded benefits the moment they set foot on American soil, whether they showed up legally or illegally. The left also welcomes in anti-American agitators, which is truly baffling.

The case of Mahmoud Khalil isn't over yet. He's still in the United States as of this writing. But for now, he's one step closer to deportation.