Trump must do to American Marxism what Reagan did to Soviet Marxism



Anybody with an IQ hovering just above double digits did not really believe that Joe Biden wouldn’t pardon his son Hunter in the end. The lie was always the point. That’s why I don’t bristle at being called a conspiracy theorist any longer.

The initial trigger for my entrance into such a brave new world was what happened with Brett Kavanaugh. The final trigger was being told during COVID-19 that natural immunity doesn't exist. And the very same people who told those lies also said that Biden was too principled, too honorable, to pardon his son. Folks, they will lie to us about literally everything.

We are dealing with worldviews that are not reconcilable and cannot peacefully coexist on this earth.

Not only is being called a conspiracy theorist not a bad thing, but it’s probably a sign at this point that you're awake and paying attention. You know, unlike Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who just compared the side effects of a child getting his genitals chopped off to taking aspirin. Congratulations, you’re not insane like her!

So the question then becomes how we should respond to such demonic gaslighting going forward. In the past, I tried to be high-minded about that and stressed the need to be careful about seeking vengeance because of what can happen when the rabbit finally gets the gun. But that is yesterday’s war. Once you’ve seen Kavanaugh turned into a marauding rapist, you start to question whether diffusing power is still a morally available or even desirable option in a land where only one side is playing by a broken social contract.

We're in a war now, so now I am firmly in the camp that we must wield the power that has been given to us with extreme prejudice. We are dealing with worldviews that are not reconcilable and cannot peacefully coexist on this earth, just as the Soviet and Western views of the world could not coexist. And the Soviets were the one side willing to act as if that was the case for the better part of two decades until a guy named Ronald Reagan came along and said enough is enough.

You want a Cold War? I'm going to give it to you.

Now the Soviet Union no longer exists. That’s power.

Unfortunately, though, much of the Soviet Marxist cultural rot ended up downloading itself into our mainframe here at home after it was defeated over there. And here’s some not-so-breaking news: The endlessly smug, sanctimonious gaslighting from the “trust the experts” class isn’t going to just going to go away on its own. The press is packed with absolute liars who are addicted to whipping it out and urinating right in your face while telling you it’s raining.

You can’t share a country with them because they don't want to share it with you. We're the ones that would be inclined to say, listen, if you guys all want to live in California and Oregon, figure it out and leave the rest of us alone. But we tried that for about 25 years, and all we got for our mediation efforts was a promise from the left to turn Texas blue. So that’s gonna be a no from me, dawg. We’re just going to have to teach you a lesson from the old school. Where’s my belt?

And they will deserve it. Because leftist progressives enjoy hurting people. They allowed open borders, and if your daughter got raped and murdered, so be it, as long as they could cheat in elections. They gave all your money to the crime syndicate in Ukraine and then laughed at you when the ensuing inflation raised the prices of everyday goods beyond your reach. They “transitioned” your kids. They mandated a poisonous jab. That’s what all the lies and gaslighting brought upon you, and it was on purpose.

In the face of such a rap sheet, yes indeed, there must be justice and retribution from a godly people bent on never letting it happen again. At an absolute minimum, what Trump should do is issue pre-emptive pardons to himself, every member of his administration, every one of his donors, every one of his closest advisers and associates, heck, anyone who has ever taken a picture with him. Lawfare, you say? You wanna get nuts? Let’s get nuts.

Oh, and everybody currently in prison for January 6 gets pardoned instantly, and the cop who shot Ashli Babbitt gets charged with murder. Because just like the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the only thing these people are going listen to is the threat of mutually assured destruction. The option for mercy has run its course. They chose the way of pain. Let’s honor their request.

America last? Foreign workers fill jobs while Americans are left out



America is full. Beyond the ongoing waves of illegal immigration, the country has admitted 36 million legal immigrants since 1989 (68 million since 1965), bringing the foreign-born population to a record 51.6 million. Every year, the U.S. issues 1.1 million green cards, 1 million guest worker visas, and 1.1 million foreign student visas. This level of immigration has transformed the nation over the past generation in unprecedented ways.

The real debate should focus on how much immigration we can curtail. Unfortunately, influential forces connected to Trump donors and transition team leaders are pushing to expand the foreign-worker pool, even though America already has more than enough.

Eight years into the MAGA movement, conservatives should not have to play defense to prevent further increases in immigration after four years of Biden’s disastrous policies.

Calls for more foreign workers come from multiple sources, including Elon Musk, who advocates for increasing foreign-worker visas and green cards. The “tech bros” even persuaded Trump to echo Mitt Romney’s half-baked suggestion of “stapling green cards to the diplomas” of foreign students.

We don’t need more foreign workers

After the election, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) emphatically declared, “We need more work visas,” as though it were an unassailable truth. However, the idea of a foreign-worker shortage exists only among those who believe new jobs should be reserved for foreigners while sidelining Americans.

In reality, all net job growth in the U.S. since 2019 has gone to foreign-born workers. Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni notes that, over the past year, native-born workers have lost 773,000 jobs on net, while foreign-born workers have gained more than one million jobs.

Since before the pandemic, the foreign-born workforce has grown by 3.7 million, while the native-born workforce has shrunk by 873,000. These numbers challenge the narrative that America needs more foreign labor.

What began as an argument that Americans won’t do manual labor has evolved into a claim that Americans won’t work in accounting, engineering, computers, or nursing. This belief creates self-fulfilling momentum, working against Americans in numerous industries. As more industries become saturated with workers from India or other countries accustomed to lower wages, salaries are depressed, and Americans are increasingly sidelined — especially as government policies often pay them not to work.

Indian contract companies like Infosys, HCL, Wipro, Cognizant, and Tata have exploited the H-1B, L-1, F-1, and Optional Practical Training visa pipelines to flood Silicon Valley and American tech companies with cheap labor. This approach not only boxes out American workers but also treats many Indian recruits as indentured servants. Over the past few decades, 71% of jobs in Silicon Valley have gone to foreign workers, while 74% of American STEM graduates have failed to secure jobs in STEM fields.

As industries like tech and computers become increasingly saturated with Indian workers, they develop cultures of parochialism and discrimination against Americans. In October, a federal jury found Cognizant, the largest recipient of H-1B visas for many years, guilty of discriminating against American IT workers. During the California-based discrimination lawsuit in Palmer v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., evidence revealed that tech firms were actively terminating American employees to replace them with H-1B workers, primarily from India.

The population of Indian nationals in the United States has grown 13-fold since 1980. Every year, Indian nationals consistently rank as the second-largest recipients of green cards, with more than 100,000 issued annually. Additionally, there are 330,000 foreign students from India studying in the U.S. On what planet do GOP donors believe we don’t already have enough?

Toward a more balanced approach

The goal of economic policy — including tax, regulatory, welfare, and immigration measures — should focus on bringing sidelined American workers back into the labor force. Yet, one of the primary arguments for admitting so many immigrants is the supposed lack of available workers. This narrative ignores the significant rise in working-age Americans (16 to 64) not participating in the labor force. These individuals are not counted as unemployed because they are no longer actively seeking work.

The combination of welfare incentives and immigration-driven wage suppression has discouraged an entire generation of workers from rejoining the labor force. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “If the same share of U.S.-born men (16 to 64) were in the labor force in 2023 as in 1960, there would be 9.5 million more U.S.-born men in the labor force. Even if the share returned to the 2000 level, it would still add 4.8 million men to the labor force.”

Instead of flooding the market with more cheap labor, further discouraging these sidelined workers, policymakers should consider a more balanced approach. Combining immigration reform with welfare reform could help incentivize Americans to re-enter the workforce and reverse these damaging trends.

We constantly hear about the supposed shortage of STEM workers, but labor scholar Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies raises an important question: “If employers are desperate for more STEM workers, why have they been lowering the compensation offered?” According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, compensation for STEM workers in 2023 was actually 7.1% lower than in 2019. If there is a tight labor market, it’s not for Americans but for the growing segment of third-world imports willing to work for less.

Congress banned contract labor immigration in 1891 for good reason. Sections 3 and 4 of the Immigration Act of 1891 prohibited companies and travel agencies from marketing or soliciting immigration with the promise of employment. The Founders envisioned a system that attracted productive immigrants who would assimilate into America’s political system and work freely, rather than one that functioned as a foreign labor mill designed to depress wages for Americans.

As Trump said during the 2016 campaign, “The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms ... to keep immigration levels, measured by population share, within historical norms ... and to establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first.”

Trump made these promises before the record-setting immigration years under the Biden administration and before all the new job gains were captured by foreign nationals. Now is the time to fulfill those promises and return immigration to historic norms. Eight years into the MAGA movement, conservatives should not have to play defense to prevent further increases in immigration after four years of Biden’s disastrous policies.

CEO’s ‘targeted killing’ highlights a rising tide of anti-institutional rage



Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealth Group, was fatally shot Wednesday morning outside of his New York City hotel in what police have described as a premeditated, targeted attack. The 50-year-old CEO was shot multiple times by a masked gunman who had been waiting outside the Hilton hotel along Sixth Avenue, where the Thompson was hosting an investors’ conference. According to his wife, Thompson had received threats, and the bullet casings recovered at the crime scene had a personalized message hand-engraved on the shells: “deny,” “depose,” and “defend.”

This chilling event raises serious concerns — not just about security but about the rising tide of disillusionment and rage in our society.

We must resist the temptation to take shortcuts to justice. Instead, we need to demand better from our leaders, our institutions, and ourselves.

For years, I’ve warned about the potential for chaos when people lose faith in institutions. Back in 2010, while on Fox News, I vividly recall saying that the very people enabling today’s revolutionary rhetoric would one day find themselves dragged into the streets by mobs and beaten to death on live television.

It sounded dramatic then. Now, it feels prophetic.

The purpose of government

The crumbling of faith in our institutions is largely due to our willful ignorance of the very purpose of our government. Unlike governments throughout history, ours wasn’t designed merely to enforce laws or keep the peace. The Declaration of Independence boldly asserts that governments are instituted among men to protect our unalienable rights — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights aren’t granted by any king, congress, or court; they are inherent.

The founders understood something critical: When governments become hostile to those rights — when they oppress rather than protect — it is not just the right but the duty of the people to replace them. However, the Declaration also offers a sobering reminder: People are often more willing to endure suffering than to risk the unknown.

This principle resonates deeply with me. As a recovering alcoholic, I know the temptation to stick with the devil you know. I lived in the pain of addiction for years, afraid that sobriety might only reveal my worst fears: that I was irredeemable, unworthy of anything better. But when the pain became unbearable, I was forced to take the leap.

America is at a similar inflection point.

Pain breeds change — but it must be lawful

We’re living in a time of immense collective pain — pain exacerbated by COVID-19, economic instability, and institutional corruption. Many Americans are willing to embrace the unknown, as we witnessed in this past election. Cohorts from the left moved across the aisle to support Donald Trump. That willingness is a sign of desperation — and an opportunity for renewal.

But it’s also dangerous. The Declaration of Independence was never a call to mob violence or vigilante justice. It was a framework for lawful, peaceful change. America’s founders understood that revolutions driven by hatred and chaos destroy justice rather than uphold it.

When institutions fail — and make no mistake, they have failed — it’s easy to see why people might turn to violence as an outlet for their anger. Marxist revolutionaries, anarchists, and disillusioned citizens will be tempted to act as judge, jury, and executioner. We’ve seen this before in history, from the French Revolution to the riots that followed George Floyd’s death.

But let me ask you: Is shooting someone in the street justice? Even if the victim is guilty — say, a corrupt pharmaceutical executive exploiting the vulnerable — is killing him how justice works?

Justice isn’t about vengeance. It’s about accountability. It requires evidence, due process, and impartiality. Mob justice, on the other hand, tears at the fabric of our society. It replaces the rule of law with chaos and ensures that no one, rich or poor, is truly safe.

A dangerous pattern emerging

Brian Thompson’s murder may be just the beginning of a disturbing trend. As faith in institutions erodes, more people will take matters into their own hands, targeting pharmaceutical executives, health care leaders, and others they perceive as symbols of corruption. This is not justice. It’s anarchy disguised as righteousness.

If we succumb to this mindset, we lose the very principles that make America worth defending. Our nation’s strength lies in its commitment to reasoned debate, lawful protest, and a system where justice is blind.

We must resist the temptation to take shortcuts to justice. Instead, we need to demand better from our leaders, our institutions, and ourselves. The pain we feel as a nation is real, but if we channel it constructively, it can lead to meaningful reform.

The Declaration of Independence gave us the blueprint: a vision for building something greater, not tearing everything apart. It’s up to us to follow that example — with prudence, reason, and care.

This isn’t just about one man’s tragic death. It’s about whether we will uphold the principles of justice or descend into chaos. The choice is ours.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Why Hunter Biden’s pardon threatens America’s legal system



Justice is the cornerstone of any thriving society. Without it, civilizations crumble under the weight of corruption, inequality, and mistrust. America’s survival depends on the integrity of its justice system — but today, that system is buckling under the strain of double standards.

You’ve heard the mantra: “No one is above the law.” Democrats repeat it endlessly when targeting Donald Trump. Yet, when Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter, that mantra was exposed as a lie.

The Hunter Biden pardon is more than a legal matter — it’s a profound betrayal of American principles.

Hunter’s pardon isn’t just another political controversy; it’s a dagger to the heart of justice in America.

Two standards of justice

Consider the accusations leveled against Donald Trump. A supposed quid pro quo with Ukraine was painted as treasonous. The infamous “perfect phone call” became the subject of an impeachment trial. Even the discredited Russian collusion narrative consumed years of investigations. In each case, we were told Trump’s actions threatened the very fabric of democracy.

In the end, what did we find? A web of lies — there was no collusion; there was no crime. Despite this, Trump’s name remains synonymous with corruption in the minds of millions.

Compare the Democrats’ treatment of Trump to that of Hunter Biden. Evidence points to millions of dollars flowing into Biden family accounts from hostile foreign nations. Hunter himself admitted to tax fraud, violating laws that protect America’s sovereignty. Even more damning, some of this money came from adversaries like China — countries actively working against our national interests. We used to call laundering money from enemies of the state “treason.” Does that apply to Hunter Biden?

Instead of facing justice, Hunter Biden received a get-out-of-jail-free card from his father.

A pardon that shatters trust

The Hunter Biden pardon is more than a legal matter — it’s a profound betrayal of American principles. Justice demands accountability, yet the president used his power to shield his son from it.

Imagine if the situation were reversed. If Donald Trump had pardoned one of his children under similar circumstances, would the media remain silent? Would political leaders shrug it off as “compassionate”?

Of course not — the outrage would be deafening, and rightly so. The blatant abuse of power would be called out for what it is: corruption.

The Hunter Biden pardon sets a dangerous precedent. It tells the American people that justice isn’t blind — it sees everything, including your political connections. If you’re powerful enough, the law becomes irrelevant.

The people who pay the price

While Hunter Biden escapes accountability, ordinary Americans are crushed under the weight of an ever-growing “lawfare” system.

Think of Daniel Penny, the Marine veteran facing manslaughter charges for stopping a violent threat on a New York subway. Penny acted to protect others, yet he may go to prison for it.

Think of the grandmothers charged for “parading” at the Capitol on January 6, or the pro-life activists arrested for praying outside abortion clinics.

These people didn’t have powerful parents or political allies. They didn’t have access to the legal privileges reserved for the elite.

Hunter Biden broke serious laws — laws designed to protect our nation from foreign influence. Yet instead of prison, he received a pardon. What message does that send to the millions of Americans trying to do the right thing?

A nation at a crossroads

America’s justice system is failing. When the powerful evade accountability while the average citizen is crushed under an expanding web of laws, society begins to collapse.

The Hunter Biden pardon is more than a personal matter; it’s a public crisis. It undermines trust in the justice system and deepens the divide between the powerful and the powerless.

America must choose: Will we uphold justice and rebuild trust, or will we let corruption and inequality drive us to ruin?

If justice isn’t for everyone, it isn’t justice at all. And without justice, America cannot survive.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Mike Johnson fights back against radical gender ideology



I traveled around the country as an elite swimmer for more than a decade, and I could never have imagined a world where men would be welcomed into the female-only bathrooms and locker rooms I used. I instinctively knew that separate spaces were for my privacy and protection. But as I have shared my own story about having to compete against a grown man in the pool, I’ve seen how broken our nation’s understanding of sex is.

It's come so far that even organizations that were once “pro-woman” have completely rejected the basic understandings of woman and womanhood.

The gender ideology madness must stop, both for the protection and privacy of women and girls and for the long-term health of the rising generation.

Earlier this year the National Women’s Law Center, an organization supposedly founded by women to protect women, filed a brief opposing my suit against the NCAA on the grounds that “woman” should be redefined to include men.

When leading “pro-woman” organizations are engaged in a campaign of lies about basic physiology and anatomy — when they support men more than they support women — we need leaders who are bold. We need leaders who speak out and refuse to cave to critics.

Last week, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) did just that. He sent shock waves through the media for saying something so painfully obvious that it would have gone unnoticed even a few years ago. Johnson simply said: Men are men, women are women, men cannot become women. He understands that the government should protect men’s and women’s privacy, safety, and opportunity.

For nearly all of congressional history, this sentiment was so widely understood that it did not need articulating. But in our modern world, where traditional definitions of sex have been conflated with completely flexible and ever-changing understandings of “gender identity,” Speaker Johnson might as well have set off a grenade.

His comments were made as all newly elected members of Congress were beginning their orientation in Congress. One of those new members is Sarah McBride, a Delaware man who says he identifies as a woman.

I know Speaker Johnson, and he is a man of principle and faith. Just a few months ago, he hosted a panel regarding Title IX protections and invited me, former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), and Independent Women’s Forum Chairman Heather Higgins. He was clear about his positions and criticized the Biden administration’s efforts to change the definition of “sex” to include “gender identity” under Title IX.

Johnson once again showed leadership last week on the critical issue of protecting women. He used his authority over the Capitol’s facilities as speaker of the House to ensure single-sex facilities would remain separated by sex and to protect women-only spaces.

This is not an attack on Rep. McBride (D), as some in the media are suggesting. In fact, Johnson noted that McBride is a duly elected member of Congress who deserves to be treated with dignity as a human being and with the respect that comes with high public office.

But McBride is also a victim of the modern gender ideology that says men can become women and that tells individuals suffering from gender dysphoria that the issue lies with their bodies, not with their minds. The treatments offered to these people can end in sterility, loss of sexual function, and numerous other devastating and irreversible medical issues.

The Independent Women’s Forum has detailed the stories of many detransitioners who have had their bodies mutilated by doctors who told them to take puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and have healthy body parts surgically removed. Many of these detransitioned men and women are now suffering from intense regret along with permanent physical damage, but as they have spoken out and tried to warn others, they have been excoriated by the same left-wing media and activist class that has been demonizing Johnson’s decision to stand with women.

The gender ideology madness must stop, both for the protection and privacy of women and girls and for the long-term health of the rising generation. Right now, all Americans who care about the future and safety of their daughters, or nieces, or sisters, or cousins have a responsibility to speak up and reject the lies of our modern age that call men women and women men. Mike Johnson is standing up for women everywhere by taking a stand to keep men out of women’s bathrooms in the House. I hope his actions inspire leaders across the country to do the same.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

From Roosevelt to ruin: Social Security’s failed promises



Of all the deceptive sales techniques the U.S. government has used on the American people, one of them — the Social Security Act — gets far too little attention. Buckle up, because this is a wild ride.

In 1935, the American people were sold a bill of goods. They were told, “Pay into this system, and it’ll be your money for retirement.” Sounds great, doesn’t it?

The government promises you security but gives you dependency. It promises ownership but gives you a tax receipt.

But here’s where it gets juicy, in an ugly way. Two years later, when the Supreme Court was considering the constitutionality of the Social Security Act, the government did a complete 180.

The government — through Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson — argued in essence, “Oh no, this isn’t your money at all. This is a tax, and we can do whatever we want with it.” Classic bait and switch.

Let’s not forget the ruling in Helvering v. Davis, where the Supreme Court upheld the Social Security Act by embracing the government’s argument and admission that what people pay into Social Security is tax revenue — available to be used as Congress may direct — and not at all money belonging to those who paid it.

To summarize: The proponents of the Social Security Act told American workers that what they paid into the system would remain their money, not the government’s — to get Congress to pass it — and then told the courts the exact opposite when defending the constitutionality of the law. The Supreme Court accepted the government’s argument, to the great detriment of the American people.

Now, let’s talk about what happens to “your money” once it’s in the government's hands. Spoiler alert: It’s not managed like your IRA or 401(k).

First, this money doesn’t sit in a nice, individual account with your name on it. No, it goes into a huge account called the “Social Security Trust Fund.” But here’s the kicker — the government routinely raids this fund. Yes, you heard that right. The government takes “your money” and uses it for whatever the current Congress deems “necessary.”

Every few years, there’s talk in Congress about “saving Social Security.” I’ve introduced and co-sponsored a number of measures over the years that would fix it. But most in Congress show little desire to fix it and are instead constantly looking for ways to “borrow” from it — with no plan to put it back.

And the returns? Forget about compound interest or stock market gains. Your “investment” in Social Security can give you a return lower than inflation.

If you had put the same amount into literally anything else — a mutual fund, real estate, even a savings account — you’d be better off by the time you reached retirement age, even if the government kept some of it!

Do the math: With Social Security, you’re looking at a return that's pathetic compared to market averages. It’s not even an investment. It’s a tax.

And let’s talk about how this system is set up to fail. The demographic shift? More retirees, fewer workers. It’s almost fair to compare it to a Ponzi scheme that’s running out of new investors. Every dollar you pay into Social Security, only to see it gobbled up by the government itself, is a dollar you can’t invest in your own future. It’s government dependency at its worst.

Remember, this isn’t just about retirement. It’s about independence, about controlling your own destiny. With Social Security, you control nothing.

The government promises you security but gives you dependency. It promises ownership but gives you a tax receipt.

And don’t get me started on the management. The Social Security Administration is a bureaucratic behemoth, not exactly known for its efficiency or innovation. If you think your money is safe there, you’re in for a rude awakening. The mismanagement, the waste, the deception — it’s all on display.

So what’s the solution? We need real, genuine reform. Within the Social Security system, Americans should be able to invest in their own future and not be shackled by the worst parts of this outdated, mismanaged system.

It’s time we acknowledge the truth: Social Security as it now exists isn’t a retirement plan; it’s a tax plan with retirement benefits as an afterthought. We were sold a dream but received a nightmare. It’s time for a wake-up call. We need real reform.

It’s time for Americans to know the true history of the Social Security Act. The more people learn the truth, the more they’ll start demanding answers, options, and real reform from Congress. Please help spread the word.

The history of the Social Security Act — which sadly must include the deceptive way it was sold to the American people — is yet another reason why America’s century-long era of progressive government must be brought to a close.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally as a post on X (formerly Twitter).

Holiday cheer or political fear? Cancel culture hits the dinner table



One of my big takeaways from the 2024 presidential election is that allowing politics to consume your life — and relationships — is deeply unhealthy. The most rabid progressives in politics have been advising Kamala Harris supporters to cut off loved ones who voted for Donald Trump at the time of year when families should be coming together, not splitting apart.

MSNBC’s Joy Reid put out a video the week before Thanksgiving explaining why some people might not feel “safe” around their MAGA relatives. She also had a Yale psychiatrist on her show who said LGBTQ+ people should feel free to avoid conservative family members.

The worst thing anyone can do this holiday season is cut off family or friends over politics. We need stronger connections.

“So if you are going through a situation where you have family members or you have close friends who you know have voted in ways that are against you, that are against your livelihood, then it’s completely fine to not be around those people and to tell them why,” Reid said.

After the 2020 election, I don’t recall any conservative articles encouraging Republicans to cut ties with liberal family members after Joe Biden won the White House. Yet, political divorce stories have become a genre of their own in progressive post-election commentary.

One Huffington Post contributor announced she was canceling Thanksgiving and Christmas because her husband and his family voted for Trump. Similar stories of people distancing themselves from relatives over politics have appeared in USA Today and Newsweek. This trend is troubling, but it aligns perfectly with the modern left’s approach to personal relationships.

The recent election revealed the anti-family ideology increasingly prevalent in progressive politics. For instance, the “Your Vote, Your Choice” political ad narrated by Julia Roberts in late October targeted married white women. The ad seemed designed to make wives feel a stronger allegiance to the “sisterhood” than to their husbands.

It’s bad enough that Democrats openly try to sow discord within families and divide husbands and wives. What makes their tactics even more egregious is the party’s unwillingness to define the word “woman” publicly. Democrats avoid doing so out of fear of offending a small group of men who believe they were born in the wrong body.

Anti-family and anti-human rhetoric isn’t just another Democratic Party talking point; it reflects a larger societal problem.

Nearly 30% of Americans now identify as religiously unaffiliated “nones” when asked about their personal faith. However, this doesn’t mean they lack deeply held beliefs. Every religion offers its followers a moral framework for distinguishing good from evil, a sense of community, and a set of deeply held convictions.

Although America has become less religious in recent decades, people remain passionate about their beliefs. In fact, those willing to sever ties with family members and destroy lifelong friendships over politics often display more zeal than the candidates running for office.

Consider this contrast: Joe Biden recently met with Donald Trump to congratulate him and discuss the transition process. The two men shook hands in front of a blazing fireplace as photographers captured the moment. Yet, some people won’t even share a meal with their parents because they voted for Trump.

Cutting off family over politics is shortsighted and extreme, especially when candidates often trade insults and baseless accusations they likely don’t even believe themselves.

Americans should spend more time with loved ones and less time online, where partisan politics dominate. Technology may give the illusion of greater connection, but in reality, American society is becoming increasingly fragmented.

People are delaying marriage and parenthood until later in life — or skipping them altogether. Families sit together at the dinner table or in restaurants, staring at screens like zombies. The politicization of companies, sports, and entertainment has turned the products we buy and the teams we root for into battlegrounds in the culture wars.

Meanwhile, our most important institutions have weakened, while partisan politics has grown unchecked, like an athlete on a human growth hormone. This imbalance is not a sign of a healthy society.

The worst thing anyone can do this holiday season is cut off family or friends over politics. We need stronger connections with those who care about our well-being. Political parties see us as voters, but our family and friends see us as real people and love us despite our flaws. No one should put politics over personal relationships.

This holiday season, my hope is that families will gather to eat, drink, and celebrate together, regardless of their political preferences. Karl Marx famously said, “Religion is the opiate of the masses,” but the progressives urging people to cut ties with family members who voted for Donald Trump are a reminder that politics has become a religion for far too many Democrats today.

When women accuse, men are always guilty — or are they?



An anonymous woman, identified as Jane Doe, accused Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense, of sexual misconduct in 2017. The media’s treatment of her allegations highlights cultural confusion about sex and consent, reveals the gendered assumptions surrounding sexual violence, and underscores the challenges of disproving false accusations.

Progressives often champion the idea of sex as a “spectrum,” but when sexual assault enters the conversation, gender and sex suddenly become rigid. In cases of alleged sex crimes, society tends to associate predation with men, assuming women are innocent of sexual aggression.

Social sympathy often favors women over men, creating an uneven playing field where sexual predation is defined almost entirely by male behavior.

Despite the weakness of Doe’s testimony, left-leaning outlets framed the story to sympathize with Doe and cast Hegseth in a harsh light. NPR led by stating that Doe could not recall the evening but consistently said “no” to Hegseth’s advances. Time, CNN, ABC, and the Guardian highlighted a portion of Doe’s testimony in which she claimed Hegseth used his body to block her from leaving his hotel room.

This selective framing approaches advocacy on Doe’s behalf. But the full police investigation suggests that Doe, not Hegseth, initiated the sexual encounter.

‘We shouldn’t be doing this’

The incident occurred after an afterparty at the Republican Women’s Conference in Monterey, California, between Oct. 7 and 8, 2017. According to the report, the two had sex in the early morning of Oct. 8 after conversing at the hotel bar and arguing near the pool. Doe claimed she was sexually assaulted, said she could not remember most of the evening of Oct. 7, and expressed concern that “something may have been slipped into her drink.”

Hegseth, however, stated he had no intention of sleeping with Doe until she returned to his hotel room and remained there. He said that after initial confusion over her continued presence, “things progressed” between them, ultimately leading to sexual intercourse.

Aside from Doe’s testimony, there is no evidence that she was intoxicated or impaired before or after the encounter. She maintained a coherent text conversation with her husband throughout the night until approximately the time intercourse occurred. Her husband also stated that she showed no signs of intoxication when she returned to their room after the incident.

However, a hotel employee who confronted Doe and Hegseth at the pool due to a noise complaint said Doe appeared sober, while Hegseth seemed “heavily intoxicated.” Hegseth admitted he was “buzzed” and recalled being led away from the hotel bar by someone he could not identify. He described the person’s attire, which matched Doe’s dress. Additionally, Hegseth could not recall his encounter with Doe and hotel staff at the pool.

Hegseth stated that after he and Doe arrived at his hotel room, he became confused when she did not leave. Eventually, they engaged in sexual activity, during which Hegseth said he repeatedly asked Doe for confirmation that she was comfortable. Despite both acknowledging that they “shouldn’t be doing this,” they continued the encounter. Hegseth expressed concern that Doe regretted her actions shortly after the sexual encounter ended.

Can women sexually prey on men?

The Hegseth incident addresses a cultural taboo because the most reasonable interpretation of the facts suggests either a consensual sexual encounter or a deliberate attempt by a woman to engage in sexual conquest.

Matt Walsh’s famous and controversial documentary posed the simple question: “What is a woman?” Assuming society can answer this challenging riddle, a follow-up question should be considered: “What is a sexually predatory woman?” Few people can offer a clear answer to this provocative question. Traditional definitions of rape have long excluded male victims. Until 2012, the FBI defined rape as the “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will,” explicitly assuming only female victimhood.

Although the legal definition of rape now technically allows for male victims, society continues to frame predation based on male behavior. Understanding female sexual aggression remains nearly impossible under current cultural conditions because discussions of sex and gender are politicized and incoherent. Sex is fluid, and men and women are supposedly interchangeable — until an accusation of sexual abuse arises. In those cases, men are almost always seen as suspects, never victims.

The Hegseth allegations highlight this reality. A man who engaged in Doe’s behavior would be criticized as a sexual predator. If a sober man walked a heavily intoxicated woman to her hotel room, refused to leave, and ultimately had sex with her, he would open himself up to cultural and legal liability. Because of her sex, however, Doe was able to present herself as Hegseth’s victim, even when relevant testimony appears to undermine her narrative.

Call it the Hegseth dilemma. Despite his powerful position as a Fox News contributor, he settled a meritless claim of sexual assault for an undisclosed amount of money to fend off the possibility of a lawsuit that could damage his reputation.

Of course, Hegseth is hardly the most sympathetic victim and, as discussed in the National Review, these allegations are bad news for his confirmation odds, even if he did not assault Doe. However, most men are not Pete Hegseth. They have no deep pockets to avoid the liability of false allegations, and if their reputations are ruined by false rape allegations, they will likely lose social support, without recourse.

Addressing the problems of sexual assault presents big challenges. Whether a woman alleges rape or a man denies the accusation as false, provability poses a major hurdle in both situations. Social sympathy often favors women over men, creating an uneven playing field where sexual predation is defined almost entirely by male behavior.

Let’s hope the Hegseth allegations can spark honest conversations about the confusion surrounding gender relationships in an era where the sexes are assumed — incorrectly — to be interchangeable. Culturally, we can either assume women are the weaker sex and protect them accordingly, or women should accept accountability, a price of equality that feminist culture has historically fought to avoid.

Trump’s border strategy exposes myths about posse comitatus



Our military was not built for urban renewal projects in Kabul or to referee Sunni versus Shia conflicts in Baghdad. Its primary purpose is to protect our country from foreign invaders. If the military cannot be deployed to address the millions of people strategically funneled into the country by ruthless drug cartels — cartels that are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans with fentanyl — then what purpose does it serve? The fact that these individuals do not remain near the border does not transform mass removals into a domestic law enforcement issue; it remains a matter of national defense.

Many in the media shout, “Posse comitatus!” as if invoking it magically prohibits the military from addressing the invasion, attempting to sound legally astute. Some Republicans, such as libertarian-leaning Rand Paul of Kentucky, express concern over the “optics” of using the military for mass deportations. While cutting off employment and benefit incentives would likely eliminate the need for mass deportations by encouraging many to leave on their own, we cannot legally preclude the military’s use based on a flawed interpretation of the law.

Prudence or 'optics' should not mislead us into spreading misinformation about the legal authority we must preserve.

Ulysses S. Grant signed the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act to prevent the military from enforcing domestic Reconstruction-era laws against American citizens in the South without explicit authorization from Congress. But repelling an invasion at the border — or within the nation’s interior — is precisely the kind of mission our founders envisioned for the military. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution obliges the federal government to protect states against invasion. We owe this to border states like Arizona and Texas, as well as every state impacted by illegal migration.

Article IV, Section 4 should serve as the constitutional exception to the Posse Comitatus Act prohibition on military enforcement. The Constitution itself expressly authorizes federal action to secure the nation from invasion, making this a legitimate use of the military in the face of an ongoing crisis.

Even without the constitutional provision, the law itself only prohibits the military from enforcing domestic laws targeting Americans, such as tax laws or traffic regulations, under the direction of local marshals. This prohibition stems from the term “posse comitatus,” which means “the power of the county.” The 1878 law prevents the military from acting as reinforcements to enforce local laws under the authority of a county sheriff.

The act responded to Attorney General Caleb Cushing’s 1854 opinion during the “Bleeding Kansas” conflict, which held that “every person in the district or county above the age of fifteen years,” including “militia, soldiers, marines,” was part of the posse comitatus and subject to the sheriff or marshal’s commands. As the Congressional Research Service notes, Congress was alarmed by this precedent even before 1878 and attempted to restrict it through an Army appropriations bill, prohibiting the use of the military to enforce territorial law in Kansas.

Under Trump’s proposed plan, however, the military would focus solely on those who invaded the country and enforce national sovereignty laws. Just as states can declare an invasion, the federal government has the authority to treat the 10-million-man border incursion as an invasion. When gangs like Tren de Aragua operate across half the states, their numbers exceed the size of any force America’s founders envisioned threatening the nation during the Constitution’s adoption.

Using the military in this context is entirely legitimate. Labeling it “immigration law” does not transform it into a domestic territorial matter outside the scope of national defense.

During “Operation Wetback,” President Eisenhower deported up to 1.3 million illegal aliens using the U.S. military, including National Guardsmen operating under Title 10 federal orders. The operation was completed within a few months, and no court challenges were filed on the grounds of violating the Posse Comitatus Act. At the time, cartels and transnational gangs posed a far lesser national defense threat than they do today.

The absence of legal challenges stemmed from the fact that deportation is not equivalent to a law enforcement action depriving someone of life, liberty, or property — protections covered under the 1878 act. As the Supreme Court ruled in Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893):

The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a "banishment," in the sense in which that word is often applied to the expulsion of a citizen from his country by way of punishment. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend. He has not, therefore, been deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process or law, and the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments have no application.

In short, actions not governed by the laws of due process are not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act’s limitations on military use. If the goal were to prosecute and imprison illegal aliens indefinitely, that would constitute a domestic law enforcement action. However, removing individuals who invaded national sovereignty by escorting them across the international border falls squarely within the military’s legal authority.

A large military force going house to house to deport illegal aliens likely won’t be necessary. Cutting off incentives such as employment, identity theft opportunities, welfare benefits, and K-12 education would prompt most to leave voluntarily. State enforcement of laws, combined with state guard units operating under Title 32 (and not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act), in red states would ensure that any encounter with the state leads to removal. This approach would deter illegal immigration, limiting active deportation efforts to targeting criminal aliens. In fact, some illegal immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are already leaving in anticipation of Trump taking office.

Prudence or “optics” should not mislead us into spreading misinformation about the legal authority we must preserve. This is about protecting territorial sovereignty — the very purpose for which America’s founders envisioned a standing army — far more than defending the fragmented territories of warring Islamic capitals.

Hunter’s ‘get out of jail free’ card lands just in the nick of time



Joe Biden has made history — not as a unifier or a statesman, but as the architect of a bold act of corruption in modern American politics. With a single stroke of his pen, Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, covering any wrongdoing from 2014 through December 1, 2024.

This act isn’t a pardon; it’s a blanket immunity deal drafted in the Oval Office.

Joe Biden just spit in the face of every American who believes in the rule of law.

Consider what this means. Tax evasion? Covered. Foreign influence peddling? Covered. Lying on a gun form? Covered. Bribes from China and Ukraine? Covered. Every crime the Biden family faces accusations for and those still unanswered have now been erased. The same justice system that harshly punishes ordinary Americans for such offenses has granted Hunter Biden immunity, courtesy of his father.

This decision isn’t just a slap at the rule of law; it’s a blow to every American who values fairness and accountability.

Let’s be clear: This is a corrupt dynasty shielding itself at all costs. Hunter Biden isn’t just a troubled son; he’s the weakest link in the Biden family empire. Evidence, including Hunter’s infamous laptop and congressional testimony, doesn’t merely implicate him. It points directly to Joe Biden, the “Big Guy” who allegedly received 10% of Hunter’s shady foreign deals.

It’s fair to say Joe Biden didn’t pardon Hunter out of love or moral duty. He did it to protect himself.

Imagine for a moment if Donald Trump had done this. If Trump had issued a sweeping pardon for Don Jr. or Eric, absolving them of past crimes and shielding them from future investigations, Democrats likely would have rioted in the streets. CNN would air round-the-clock coverage of the “death of democracy.” Rachel Maddow might need a fainting couch. The New York Times would call for impeachment before the ink dried.

But when Biden does it? The media shrugs. Where are the op-eds condemning this abuse of power? Where is the outrage from self-proclaimed defenders of democracy?

This isn’t just hypocrisy; it’s complicity. The media, the Democratic Party, and every so-called “independent” institution have revealed themselves as enablers of a corrupt regime.

Let’s not forget what Hunter Biden did. This is a man who failed to pay hundreds of thousands in taxes while profiting from shady foreign deals under the Biden name. He lied on a federal gun application. His laptop — dismissed by Democrats and media allies as “Russian disinformation” — exposed a life of drugs, prostitutes, and influence-peddling.

And yet, thanks to Joe Biden, Hunter won’t spend a single day in jail. In fact, he won’t need to defend himself again in court. Why? Because his father just declared that the rules don’t apply to his family.

But this pardon goes beyond Hunter Biden. It sets a precedent that will haunt this country for generations. Joe Biden has sent a clear message: If you’re politically connected, the law doesn’t matter. If you’re part of the elite, you get a free pass. Meanwhile, the rest of us are expected to follow every rule, pay every tax, and accept every consequence.

It’s a mockery of justice.

The timing of this pardon is no coincidence. Biden knows congressional investigations into his family’s corrupt dealings are closing in. He knows Hunter’s scandals could bring him down. This pardon isn’t just a shield for Hunter; it’s a firewall for Joe. By issuing this sweeping pardon, Joe has effectively blocked any future accountability for his family’s crimes.

But the American people aren’t blind. They see the charade. They recognize the two-tiered justice system that punishes ordinary Americans while allowing elites like Hunter Biden to walk free. And they’re fed up.

The Biden family members believe they’ve secured victory. They think this pardon will shield them from consequences. But they’re mistaken. This isn’t the end — it’s the beginning.

Republicans in Congress must act decisively and without delay. This is no time for half measures. They need to issue subpoenas, hold hearings, and file criminal referrals. The Biden family’s corruption must be fully exposed — not just to achieve justice, but to safeguard the country’s future.

This moment is a turning point. It’s proof that the Democratic Party is beyond corrupt — it’s irredeemably broken. The same party that preaches about equity and fairness has revealed itself as a party of elites, by elites, and for elites.

Joe Biden just spit in the face of every American who believes in the rule of law. He’s dared us to hold him accountable. And if we don’t, the very idea of justice in this country will be little more than a memory.