Trump Admins Ends Taxpayer Subsidies For Illegal Aliens
The wide-ranging move ends a nearly 30-year period of government incentivizing illegal immigration by allowing illegals to benefit from programs meant for Americans.The wide-ranging move ends a nearly 30-year period of government incentivizing illegal immigration by allowing illegals to benefit from programs meant for Americans.Trump fighting 'unconstitutional power grab' by Obama judge who reopened the floodgates
President Donald Trump determined on his first day back in office that the "current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution."
He then proclaimed, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, that migrants stealing into the homeland would henceforth be restricted from claiming asylum until the invasion was over. Those who failed to provide federal officials with sufficient personal information at legal ports of entry would similarly be restricted in making asylum claims.
Of course, this proclamation enraged all the usual suspects on the left, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the asylum ban in February on behalf of three radical activist groups and a handful of foreigners denied asylum.
'An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void.'
According to the activist groups' complaint, the proclamation was "as unlawful as it is unprecedented," and "immigration — even at elevated levels — is not an 'invasion.'"
On Wednesday, an Obama judge weaseled around the U.S. Supreme Court's June 27 determination regarding nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA Inc. in order to universally bar the administration from expelling asylum seekers from the United States.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said Trump had exceeded his executive authority in adopting "an alternative immigration system" and that his day-one proclamation was unlawful.
"Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the president or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance," wrote Moss. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void."
While the Supreme Court indicated last week that the national injunctions weaponized against the Trump administration by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts," Justice Brett Kavanaugh recognized in his concurring opinion that district courts may still be able to "grant or deny the functional equivalent of a universal injunction — for example, by granting or denying a preliminary injunction to a putative nationwide class under Rule 23(b)(2)."
Moss embraced this "functional equivalent of a universal injunction" and certified all border-jumping asylum seekers "who are now or will be present in the United States" as a protected class.
'The American people see right through this.'
Moss did, however, stay his ruling two weeks pending an appeal from the Trump administration. Depending on how the appeal goes, the floodgates could be reopened to multitudes of foreign nationals seeking asylum.
"To try to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions a marxist judge has declared that all potential FUTURE illegal aliens on foreign soil (eg a large portion of planet earth) are part of a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States," wrote White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.
Miller added, "The West will not survive if our sovereignty is not restored."
Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin similarly underscored the gravity of Moss' ruling, noting in a statement obtained by CNN, "The President secured the border in historic fashion by using every available legal tool provided by Congress. Today, a rogue district judge took those tools away, threatening the safety and security of Americans and ignoring a Supreme Court decision issued only days earlier admonishing district courts for granting nationwide injunctions."
RELATED: Alligator Alcatraz is a warning to illegal immigrants in the US: Leave now or end up here
While the White House did not comment on whether Trump might follow President Abraham Lincoln's example of taking actions that bypass or supersede the rulings of meddlesome judges, it indicated the administration expects to win on appeal.
"A local district court judge has no authority to stop President Trump and the United States from securing our border from the flood of aliens trying to enter illegally," White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement to Blaze News. "The judge's decision — which contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling against granting universal relief — would allow entry into the United States of all aliens who may ever try to come in illegally."
"This is an attack on our Constitution, the laws Congress enacted, and our national sovereignty," continued Jackson. "We expect to be vindicated on appeal."
Attorney General Pam Bondi characterized Moss as a "rogue" judge "trying to circumvent the Supreme Court's recent ruling against nationwide injunctions."
"The American people see right through this," said Bondi. "Our attorneys ... will fight this unconstitutional power grab as [Trump] continues to secure our border."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
America’s Southwest was conquered fair and square
The most striking images from the recent anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement riots in Los Angeles depicted protesters defiantly waving the Mexican flag. Some commentators noted the irony: Why carry the flag of the very country you don’t want to be deported to? Others offered a darker interpretation — the flag wasn’t just a symbol of heritage but a claim. The message: California rightfully belongs to Mexico.
That sentiment echoes the increasingly common ritual of “land acknowledgements” on college campuses. Event organizers now routinely recite statements recognizing that a school sits on land once claimed by this or that Indian tribe. But such cheap virtue signaling skips over a key point: Tribes seized land from each other long before Europeans arrived.
The United States had offered to purchase the disputed territories. Mexico treated the offer as an insult and indignantly refused. And the war came.
Do the descendants of the Aztecs have a claim to California and the rest of the American Southwest? The answer is a simple and emphatic no. The United States holds that territory by treaty, by financial compensation, and, yes, by conquest. But the full story is worth examining — because it explains why Spain and later Mexico failed to hold what the United States would eventually claim.
The rise and fall of the Spanish empire
Spain launched its exploration and conquest of the Americas in the 15th century and eventually defeated the Aztec empire in Mexico. But by the 18th century, Spanish control began to wane. The empire’s model of rule — exploitative, inefficient, and layered with class resentment — proved unsustainable.
At the top were the peninsulares, Spaniards born in Europe who ran colonial affairs from Havana and Mexico City. They had little connection to the land or the people they governed — and often returned to Spain when their service ended.
Below them stood the creoles, locally born Spaniards who could rise in power but never fully displace the peninsulares.
Then came the mestizos — mixed-race descendants of Spaniards and natives — and, finally, the native peoples themselves, descendants of the once-dominant Aztecs, who lived in state of peonage.
Inspired by the American Revolution, Mexico declared itself a republic in 1824. But it lacked the civic traditions and institutional structure to sustain self-government. Political chaos followed. Factionalism gave way to the dictatorship of Antonio López de Santa Anna, who brutally suppressed a rebellion in Coahuila y Tejas.
Texas had long been a trouble spot. Even before independence from Spain, Mexican officials encouraged American settlement to create a buffer against Comanche raids. The Comanche — superb horsemen — dominated the Southern Plains, displacing rival tribes and launching deep raids into Mexican territory. During the “Comanche moon,” their war parties could cover 70 miles in a day. They were a geopolitical power unto themselves.
RELATED: Flipping cars for ‘justice’ — then back to poli-sci class
Anglo settlers in Texas brought their own ideas of decentralized government. When tensions escalated, they declared independence. Santa Anna responded with massacres at Goliad and the Alamo. But after his defeat and capture at San Jacinto, he granted Texas independence in exchange for his life. Mexico’s government refused to honor the deal — and continued to claim Texas, insisting that the border lay at the Nueces River, not the Rio Grande.
How the Southwest was won
After the United States annexed Texas in 1845, conflict became inevitable. Mexican forces crossed the Rio Grande and clashed with U.S. troops. President James Polk requested a declaration of war in 1846.
The Mexican-American War remains one of the most decisive — and underappreciated — conflicts in U.S. history. The small but capable U.S. Army, bolstered by state volunteers, outclassed Mexican forces at every turn. American troops seized Santa Fe and Los Angeles.
General Zachary Taylor pushed south, winning battles at Resaca de la Palma and Monterrey. General Winfield Scott launched a bold amphibious assault at Veracruz, then cut inland — without supply lines — to capture Mexico City. The Duke of Wellington called the campaign “unsurpassed in military annals.”
The war served as a proving ground for a generation of officers who would later lead armies in the Civil War.
Diplomatically, the war might have been avoided. The United States had offered to purchase the disputed territories. Mexico treated the offer as an insult and indignantly refused. And the war came.
Territory bought and paid for
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, ended the conflict. Mexico ceded California and a vast swath of land that now includes Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming. Mexico also gave up its claim to Texas and accepted the Rio Grande as the southern border.
In return, the United States paid Mexico $15 million “in consideration of the extension acquired by the boundaries of the United States” and assumed certain debts owed to American citizens. Mexicans living in the newly acquired territory could either relocate within Mexico’s new borders or become U.S. citizens with full civil rights. The Gadsden Purchase added even more land.
The United States gained enormously from the war at the expense of Mexico. Critics of the expansionist policy known as “manifest destiny,” including the Whigs and Ulysses S. Grant, called the result unjust. Some Southerners wanted to annex all of Mexico to expand slavery. That plan was wisely rejected, though the “law of conquest” made it a possibility.
Still, the U.S. paid for the land, offered citizenship to the inhabitants, and declined to claim more than necessary. In the rough world of 19th-century geopolitics, that counted as a just outcome.
The results are in: Tallying up Biden’s immigration damage
Most mainstream press accounts have largely ignored one obvious source of the Los Angeles riots — namely, that the Biden administration released more than enough illegal aliens into this country to populate a wholly new Los Angeles. In the aftermath of those riots, it’s an appropriate time to ask this question: How many illegal aliens did the Biden administration actually let into the United States?
According to the Congressional Budget Office, from 2021 through 2024, a net 10.3 million people immigrated to the United States. That figure reflects the number of (legal or illegal) immigrants who entered the U.S., minus the number who left. As a result of this huge immigration influx, the portion of the U.S. population that is foreign-born hit 16.2%, per the Congressional Budget Office, surpassing the all-time record of 14.8% set in 1890. That mark lasted for more than 130 years, but it couldn’t survive the Biden administration.
One can only wonder how many potential terrorists got across Biden’s porous border without being encountered.
In fact, the percentage of the population that is foreign-born is probably even higher than 16.2%, as that figure was for 2023 (up from 15.6% in 2022). Since a net 2.7 million people immigrated to the U.S. in 2024, according to the CBO, and about 500,000 foreign-born residents die annually (based on the CBO’s estimate for 2023), the foreign-born population rose by an estimated 2.2 million in 2024 — from 55.1 million to about 57.3 million. So the percentage of the population that is foreign-born likely hit about 16.8% last year (57.3 million out of 342 million). In comparison, in 1970, the portion of the U.S. population that was foreign-born was 4.7%, which is just over a quarter of the current rate.
Put another way, on the cusp of next year’s quarter-millennial anniversary of American independence, about one out of every six people now living in the U.S. is foreign-born, versus one out of every 21 on the eve of the bicentennial. That’s a massive population transformation — one unlike anything our country has ever experienced.
Record-breaking numbers
Most of those who were added to the foreign-born population during the Biden years were added illegally. From 2021 through 2024 — a period that coincides almost perfectly with Biden’s presidential term (having 97% overlap) — the net increase in the number of illegal aliens in the U.S., based on CBO estimates, was 7.1 million people. In comparison, the entire population of Los Angeles is 3.9 million.
Note that this represents the net increase. The gross increase in the number of illegal aliens under Biden was likely close to 10 million. The CBO only estimates the gross increase for a portion of Biden’s term, but its partial tallies can yield a reasonable estimate for the whole four-year span.
Citing numbers obtained from the Department of Homeland Security, the CBO estimates that in 2023 and 2024, the gross increase in the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. was 5.9 million, while the net increase was 4.3 million. That’s about four new illegal aliens added (by being released into the country, evading capture, or overstaying a legal authorization) for every one that was subtracted (by leaving or being legalized).
So the ratio between the gross increase and the net increase was about 4 to 3. Assuming the same ratio in 2021 and 2022 — when the CBO estimates that the net increase in the number of illegal aliens was 2.9 million — suggests the gross increase over that span was about 3.9 million. Adding the 5.9 million cited above reveals a gross increase of about 9.8 million illegal aliens across Biden’s four years. That’s more than the population of New York City — or all of New Jersey.
The CBO switched from using fiscal-year figures for 2023 to using calendar-year figures for 2024 in estimating the gross increase in the number of illegal aliens (and the releases, evasions, and overstays that compose that gross increase). But the number of encounters along the southwest border was very similar in FY 2023 as in CY 2023 (being 3% higher in CY 2023), so this switch likely had little effect on the CBO estimates. Indeed, for the net increase in the number of illegal aliens, the CBO provides both FY 2023 and CY 2023 numbers, and they differ by just 0.1 million.
The vast majority of these roughly 10 million illegal aliens didn’t overstay their visas, per the CBO. Rather, they either evaded capture and escaped across the border or were released by the Biden administration into the country’s interior.
Released with no accountability
By far the biggest cohort was deliberately released. As U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell wrote during a Biden-era case, U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz “testified that the current surge differs from prior surges that he [has] seen over his lengthy career in that most of the aliens now being encountered at the Southwest Border are turning themselves in to USBP officers rather than trying to escape the officers.”
Ortiz, whom the Biden administration selected as Border Patrol chief, said at the time that aliens are likely “turning themselves in because they think they’re going to be released.”
They were generally right. The CBO estimates that in 2024, Biden’s DHS released more than 1.5 million aliens into the U.S. — 570,000 were encountered along the open border and released, and another 960,000 were encountered at ports of entry along the border and released — while another estimated 800,000 escaped across the border.
RELATED: Street riots can’t set US immigration policy
In FY 2023, DHS released about 2 million aliens into the U.S. — 1.1 million of whom crossed the open border and were released, 900,000 of whom were released at ports of entry — while another estimated 860,000 escaped across the border. That’s a total of 5.2 million evasions or releases over two years (specifically over FY 2023 and CY 2024, the periods for which the Congressional Budget Office provides figures). During the same 24 months, 715,000 people overstayed their legal authorizations to be in the country, per CBO estimates.
In other words, about seven-eighths (5.2 million out of 5.9 million) of those who joined the ranks of illegal aliens over those two years either evaded capture or were released into the country, rather than overstaying their visas. Applying that same seven-eighths figure to 2021 and 2022 — when the gross increase in the number of illegal aliens was about 3.9 million — suggests that about 3.4 million illegal aliens evaded capture or were released over those two years. That brings the estimated four-year tally to about 8.6 million releases or evasions under Biden (5.2 million plus 3.4 million) — a number larger than the populations of 38 individual states.
A president-approved invasion
To sum up, about 10 million illegal aliens were added to the U.S. population during the Biden administration. Of those, about 8.6 million came across the southern border — usually being released but sometimes evading capture — rather than overstaying their visas. After accounting for illegal aliens who either left the country or became legalized, the result was a net increase of 7.1 million illegal aliens during the Biden years, per the CBO.
That net increase of 7.1 million illegal aliens equals about two-thirds of the overall net increase of 10.3 million (legal or illegal) immigrants during Joe Biden’s tenure. After four years of Biden, the foreign-born population now makes up a higher percentage of the overall U.S. population than at any time on record, including during the great waves of immigration in the 19th century.
But it’s not just how many but who came into the country that matters. During the three full fiscal years (FY 2018-2020) immediately preceding the Biden administration, there were a total of nine encounters along the open border between Border Patrol officials and noncitizens on the terrorist watch list. During the three full fiscal years (FY 2022-2024) that took place entirely during Biden’s term, there were 370 such encounters — a 41-fold increase. Across all four years of the Biden presidency, the number of such encounters was approximately 400. One can only wonder how many potential terrorists got across Biden’s porous border without being encountered.
On his first day in office, Biden issued an executive order prioritizing “equity.” His DHS soon quoted that order, made clear it would apply it “in the immigration and enforcement context,” and thereafter refused to enforce federal immigration law requiring the detention of asylum-seekers. Such “equity”-driven actions were, in the words of Judge Wetherell, “akin to posting a flashing ‘Come In, We’re Open’ sign on the southern border.”
As a result of that neon invitation, 7.1 million more illegal aliens entered the U.S. or overstayed their visas than left the U.S. or became legalized while Biden was in office — more than the combined populations of Los Angeles, D.C., Boston, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Atlanta, and Miami. This was a deliberate result of Biden’s “equity” agenda, and Americans are paying the price.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics.
Trump’s punitive strike was precision, not permission for war
President Donald Trump made clear from the start: A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. But until just recently, few paid attention. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that while Iran had enriched a suspicious amount of uranium, it lacked a viable weapons program — let alone a bomb.
At the same time, left-wing agitators tried to spread immigration riots from Los Angeles to the rest of the country. Trump stayed focused on the domestic agenda his voters demanded. Israel’s sudden strike on Iran threatened to drag the United States into another foreign war — and derail Trump’s progress at home.
Trump knows his voters support a strong defense — but they’re tired of wasting American blood and treasure to fight foreign wars while their country falls apart at home.
Now that the U.S. has carried out a precision strike and set back Iran’s nuclear program, it’s time for Trump to return his full attention to rescuing America from Joe Biden’s open-border catastrophe.
Every presidency races against time, political capital, and public attention. Trump understood from the outset how easily foreign entanglements — especially in the Middle East — can swallow an administration.
That’s one reason the MAGA base remains loyal: Trump prioritizes domestic issues most presidents ignore while playing global policeman. Even while negotiating with Iran, Trump kept his focus on immigration. He battled leftist protesters and rogue judges at home, while keeping one eye on foreign threats.
But nearly two years after the terrorist attacks on October 7, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saw the window for war with Iran closing. Israel launched initial strikes on June 13 without American approval. Supporters insisted Israel could finish the job alone.
That was welcome news to Trump’s base, which feared any new conflict in the Middle East would derail his domestic policy blitz. But then the neoconservatives started moving the goalposts. Suddenly, it wasn’t just about airstrikes — it was about regime change.
Trump approved the use of U.S. bunker-buster bombs, believing them essential to destroy uranium enrichment sites buried deep in Iran’s mountains. U.S. forces entered and exited Iranian airspace without incident, delivering their payloads. Both sides issued conflicting reports about the strike’s effectiveness. But Trump clearly saw the operation as a means to reduce foreign policy pressure and pivot back to domestic priorities.
That pivot didn’t go as quickly as planned.
Israel and its allies quickly shifted from nuclear disarmament to full-blown regime change. Iran fired retaliatory missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar. While those strikes appeared calibrated to avoid casualties, tensions escalated.
Trump announced a ceasefire he had brokered between Iran and Israel. Both nations violated it within hours.
Netanyahu even defied Trump directly, ordering another strike while the president live-tweeted his demand for Israeli jets to turn back. They dropped their payloads anyway.
Frustrated, Trump told reporters Tuesday morning he was fed up with both countries. Israel, a close ally, had no interest in honoring its commitments. “Truth is, they have been fighting so long and so hard they don’t know what the f**k they’re doing. Do you understand that?” he said.
RELATED: It’s not a riot, it’s an invasion
American and Israeli interests were never fully aligned. Israel wants regime change. It lacks the capability to do it alone. Americans don’t want a nuclear Iran, either, but they have no appetite for another long war.
Trump’s airstrike may have succeeded, but that won’t satisfy Netanyahu. He clearly hopes to drag Trump into a broader conflict.
Israel’s refusal to respect a ceasefire negotiated by its primary benefactor makes the next step obvious: walk away.
On Tuesday, Trump issued a flurry of social media posts calling for mass deportations. He got what he wanted in Iran. Now, he’s ready to exit.
Would Israel continue its push for regime change without U.S. support? Maybe. It’s time to find out. The U.S. shouldn’t fight another unpopular Middle East war for an ally that won’t keep its word.
In his farewell address after his first term, Trump listed avoiding war as one of his proudest achievements. He knows his voters support a strong defense — but they’re tired of wasting American blood and treasure to fight foreign wars while their country falls apart at home.
Republicans always promise domestic wins. They spend their political capital overseas. Trump’s first hundred days this term have been different. He’s delivered rapid-fire domestic victories. That’s where the focus belongs.
Americans don’t want more war in the Middle East — especially one waged on behalf of an ally that does not respect their president. Biden’s open-border nightmare still haunts the nation. Crime, poverty, trafficking, and collapsing infrastructure all stem from the ongoing invasion of illegal immigrants.
Whatever nuclear threat existed in Iran has been neutralized.
Now Trump must do the job he was elected to do — the job he wants to do.
Deport illegal aliens, finish the wall, and put America first.
The parliamentarian isn’t more powerful than the people
First we were told that unelected federal judges could dictate all policy, law, and appropriations. Now the excuse for inaction is the Senate parliamentarian.
Left-wing protesters chant “no kings,” but nearly every major Trump-era domestic policy was blocked by a court. Nearly 200 actions on immigration, personnel, spending, and transgender issues were halted or overturned by the judiciary. Today, the good provisions in an otherwise lackluster reconciliation bill are being gutted — not by Congress, not by voters, but by a Senate staffer.
Republicans now hide behind the parliamentarian to justify a bill that hikes the deficit, preserves green energy handouts, and leaves the welfare state untouched.
If Republicans refuse to overrule the courts, the parliamentarian, or anyone else standing in the way, what’s the plan? What’s the point of winning elections if Democrats, judges, and bureaucrats still call the shots? Do they really expect to get 60 Senate votes?
Over the past week, Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that a long list of provisions violate the Byrd Rule and can’t be included in the reconciliation bill. Among them:
Financial Cuts:
- Require states with high food stamp overpayments to share in the cost (reduced from $128 billion to just $41 billion).
- Cut $6.4 billion from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
- Cut $1.4 billion in Federal Reserve staff wages.
- Cut $293 million from the Office of Financial Research.
- Eliminate the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ($771 million).
- Cut Pentagon funding if the department misses spending deadlines.
- Ban food stamps for illegal aliens.
Policy Measures:
- Repeal green energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act.
- Overturn EPA tailpipe emission rules.
- Vacate certain court injunctions when plaintiffs don’t post bond.
- Bar funding for sanctuary cities.
- Allow states to arrest illegal aliens.
- Require congressional approval of major federal regulations (modified REINS Act).
Republicans now hide behind MacDonough to justify a bill that hikes the deficit, preserves green energy handouts, and leaves the welfare state untouched.
The Byrd Rule has become an excuse to flush the conservative priorities and pass a mess. And let’s not kid ourselves — the parliamentarian had no objection to provisions that punish states for regulating AI. Under the Senate version of the bill, states can still regulate AI and data centers, but if they do, they lose access to BEAD broadband funding.
The good stuff in this bill may have been bait — added just to lure conservatives into voting yes, knowing full well the parliamentarian would knock it out. That’s why conservatives must pressure President Trump to do what Senate Republicans won’t: overrule MacDonough.
RELATED: Split the Big Beautiful Bill Act, seal the border … and give Trump a real win
Let’s get something straight: The Senate parliamentarian does not make the rules. The presiding officer does — and the majority party controls the chair. The office of parliamentarian didn’t even exist until 1935. The parliamentarian sits below the presiding officer on the rostrum, not above him. Her advice is just that — advice.
The Congressional Research Service puts it plainly: "As a staff official, neither parliamentarian is empowered to make decisions that are binding on the House or Senate. The parliamentarians and their deputies/assistants only offer advice that the presiding Representative or Senator may accept or reject."
JD Vance, as president of the Senate, can overrule MacDonough at any time. Here’s how: When Democrats raise a point of order against a GOP-backed provision, MacDonough may say it violates the Byrd Rule and must be stripped. But the presiding officer — Vance or his designee — can simply say no. That provision stays in the bill. The Senate then proceeds under the reconciliation process and passes the whole thing with a simple majority.
Trump can make this happen. He can threaten to send Vance to the chair if Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) refuses to play ball. Thune can demand MacDonough’s firing — just as Trent Lott did in 2001 when the parliamentarian ruled against Republican priorities.
Trump is right to be frustrated. On Tuesday, he demanded that Congress cancel the July 4 recess and finish the job. But he also needs to make it clear that he won’t accept a watered-down deal. He must draw red lines around immigration and the Green New Deal. The American people didn’t elect Elizabeth MacDonough. They elected Trump.
And no unelected staffer has the right to overturn the will of 77 million voters.
Biden Admin Let 729 Iranian Border-Crossers Loose Into America: Report
The lack of border security under the Biden administration undermined national security on multiple fronts.Mass Migration Destroys The West Like Crowd Controls Destroy The Mona Lisa
The goal of allowing ever more people in, while egalitarian, actually diminishes the experience for everyone.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com