04b Theory and Analysis

Source Link
Excerpt:

The modern Democrat Party is many things. But an ardent defender of Americans’ First Amendment right to free speech is not one of them.

This theme was front and center during a sit-down interview former President Barack Obama participated in at The Connecticut Forum earlier this week. At one point in his conversation with historian and author Heather Cox Richardson, America’s 44th commander-in-chief broached the subject of “propaganda” and how “[t]hose in power, those with money, exploit [the information] space in which nobody knows what’s true.”

“Vladimir Putin and the KGB had a saying that was then adopted proudly by Steve Bannon, which was if you want propaganda to be effective, you don’t have to convince people that what you are saying is true,” Obama said. “You just have to flood the zone with so much poop. They use a different word. But you have to flood the zone with so much untruth, constantly, that at some point people don’t believe anything.”

The former president went on to take an indirect shot at President Donald Trump’s contesting of the 2020 election results, saying, “it doesn’t matter if a candidate running for office just is constantly, just hypothetically, saying untrue things, or if an elected president claims that he won when he lost and that the system was rigged, but then when he wins, then it isn’t rigged, because he won.” Tying it back to his remarks about “propaganda,” he noted, “It just matters if everybody starts kind of throwing up their hands and saying, well, I guess it doesn’t matter.”

“And that’s what’s happened. That’s what’s happened in one of our major political parties. You have a whole bunch of people who know that’s not true, but we will pretend like it is. And that is dangerous,” Obama said.

Source Link
Excerpt:

One of the most disturbing trends in politics since the 2000 election has been retired admirals and generals trading on their former military rank to meddle in partisan politics. The trend really hit its stride in 2008, when Barack Obama enlisted about 60 retired flag officers/general officers as campaign surrogates. Since then, Democrat presidential candidates trotting out tamed FOGOs to give them national security cred has become a standard, reaching a possible nadir when at least ten of them endorsed Kamala Harris and characterized Trump as “dangerous.”

President Trump’s well-founded decision to federalize a portion of the California Army National Guard (4,100 of a force of about 24,000) has caused another spasm of inappropriate political activity by retired generals. Several joined Gavin Newsom’s specious lawsuit attempting to limit Trump’s authority granted by Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution by filing an amicus brief. That case was demolished by a panel of the Ninth Circuit on Thursday; see Breaking: 9th Circuit Issues Stay Pending Appeal in CA National Guard Case, Handing Trump a Big Win.

One of their allies was granted editorial space on Fox News to spread what can only be called a disingenuous, bordering on overtly dishonest, description of the situation. Retired Major General Randy Manner essentially paraphrases the arguments in the amicus brief filed supporting Newsom’s push to institutionalize lawlessness in California. In his profile, he omits the small fact that he endorsed Kamala Harris, but full disclosure is for losers, anyway.

In a vapid op-ed headlined I led National Guard and regular Army units. Using the military to intimidate Americans is 100% wrong. Manner makes the extraordinary charge that the Trump administration is engaged in a “dramatic misuse of power and could lead to disastrous legal, operational and ethical outcomes.” So what are the specific instances of “misuse of power?”

Source Link
Excerpt:

For centuries, humanity has pursued the secret to a longer life through alchemy, mythology, and, more recently, science. While the philosopher’s stone remains a myth, researchers have discovered a reliable method to extend lifespan in animals: eating less. Known as dietary restriction, this practice triggers biological mechanisms that slow aging and improve longevity. However, strict dieting is difficult and unsustainable for many. The pressing question now is whether we can replicate these benefits without giving up the joy of food. Could science develop treatments that mimic the effects of calorie restriction, offering a longer, healthier life—without constant hunger?

… Rapamycin, which was initially identified in Easter Island soil in the 1970s, is a potent immunosuppressant drug utilised to suppress organ transplant rejection. Its anti-aging applications result from its capacity to inhibit a primary molecular switch (mTOR) that informs cells that nutrients are abundant. By suppressing this message, rapamycin mimics the action of dietary deprivation at the cell level. Actually, a combination of rapamycin with another medication, trametinib, has been found to further prolong the lifespan of mice.Metformin is a compound found in the French lilac plant that is commonly prescribed to manage blood sugar levels in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Like rapamycin, it targets the body’s nutrient-sensing mechanisms. With its extensive record of safety and widespread use, it’s been a potential life-extending candidate.Yet the review of 167 studies involving eight vertebrate animals—from fish to rats—found no persistent evidence that metformin prolonged lifespan. This would indicate it might not be able to deliver all the benefits of dietary restriction, at least singly.

Source Link
Excerpt:

 

Every so often, an academic wrapped in the robes of theory decides to rewrite history — not to correct it, but to commandeer it.

The latest example comes from the Conversation, in which a University of Iowa scholar, Sarah Barringer, claims that Christianity has a “transgender” heritage. You heard that right: Saints who renounced the world to live in chastity and devotion are now being posthumously enlisted in a modern identity crusade they never chose.

The modern obsession with identity — splintering the self into ever-narrower categories — is antithetical to the Christian ethos.

Let’s acknowledge the truth up front: There is no such thing as a “transgender saint.” There are saints who disguised themselves, fled arranged marriages, and shaved their heads and donned robes to live among men in monasteries because that was the only place they could escape danger, obligation, or temptation.

But calling this “transness” is like calling Joan of Arc gender-fluid because she wore armor. It’s historical trespassing and spiritual identity theft dressed up as scholarship.

Source Link
Excerpt:

(LifeSiteNews) — U.S. government agencies have never engaged in open coercion to force down the birth rate, at least within the borders of the United States. (USAID’s past actions overseas are another matter.)…

The blueprint for this assault on American families and American fertility was drawn up way back in 1972 by something called the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future.

The Commission was the brainchild of one of America’s original population bomb fanatics, John D. Rockefeller III, who also happened to be one of the wealthiest men on the planet.

Like many of his fellow globalist elites—think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet—Rockefeller had long been convinced that Americans were having way too many babies. And he decided that it was past time to use a whole-of-government approach to put a stop to this reckless reproduction.

Rockefeller badgered President Richard Nixon into setting up the Commission on Population Growth in 1970 and appointing him as chairman. Over the next two years he steered it with an iron hand, using it to concoct a comprehensive plan that he hoped would stop America’s population growth dead in its tracks.

The report that he issued, called Population and the American Future, was a population controller’s dream. It began—as such screeds always do—with a stark warning: Unless something was done to stop America’s high birth rates, the population of the U.S. would explode from 203 million in 1970 to 300 million by 2000.

Grim consequences would follow, the report warned: Cities would become overcrowded cesspools of poverty and racial tension. Inequality would grow. Hordes of children would strain schools and other social services to the breaking point. Pressure on natural resources like water and energy would escalate as cities sprawled across the landscape, full of people sowing pollution wherever they went.

Source Link
Excerpt:

ROME — ROME (AP) — Pope Leo XIV warned Friday that artificial intelligence could negatively impact the intellectual, neurological and spiritual development of young people as he pressed one of the priorities of his young pontificate.

History’s first American pope sent a message to a conference of AI and ethics, part of which was taking place in the Vatican in a sign of the Holy See’s concern for the new technologies and what they mean for humanity.

In the message, Leo said any further development of AI must be evaluated according to the “superior ethical criterion” of the need to safeguard the dignity of each human being while respecting the diversity of the world’s population.

He warned specifically that new generations are most at risk given they have never had such quick access to information.

“All of us, I am sure, are concerned for children and young people, and the possible consequences of the use of AI on their intellectual and neurological development,” he said in the message. “Society’s well-being depends upon their being given the ability to develop their God-given gifts and capabilities,” and not allow them to confuse mere access to data with intelligence.

Source Link
Excerpt:

In the both the 2016 and 2024 presidential elections, Donald Trump cynically but effectively adopted the mantle of the anti-war candidate, accusing his rivals of a dangerous commitment to a policy of regime-change wars that threatened to usher in a new era of wars—and perhaps World War III. In October 2024, he specifically rejected the idea of regime change in Iran, saying, “We can’t get totally involved in all that. We can’t run ourselves, let’s face it.” In his Inaugural address in January, Trump promised to be a “a peacemaker” who would “stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent, and totally unpredictable.” In a major foreign policy address in Saudi Arabia in May, Trump reiterated his oft-repeated critique of “Western interventionalists [sic]” and “neocons” who have tried to remake the Middle East in America’s image.

As I’ve repeatedly argued, while Trump’s words are a salutary rejection of the hubris of the bipartisan foreign policy elite, there’s little in Trump’s record to show that he knows how to redirect American foreign policy toward a more peaceful direction. Quite the reverse is true: Trump’s own limitations as a leader—his fickleness, lack of deep commitments, and desire to placate different factions in his political coalition—make him an easy prey to militarists who want to push for new conflicts. The current outbreak of hostilities against Iran initiated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a clear case in point.

Trump gave the green light to Israel’s attack on Iran, which started on Friday. These attacks have led to open salivation by Netanyahu and leading congressional Republicans such as Ted Cruz at the prospect of regime change in Iran. They have derailed, as they were intended to do, Trump’s ongoing push for a nuclear deal with Iran. They also threaten to drag the United States into an escalating Middle Eastern war—something Trump has repeatedly promised to avoid.

Source Link
Excerpt:

For years, I’ve heard the same complaint from friends, family, and the nightly news: Donald Trump is his own worst enemy. The real problem, they say, is the man’s personality. If only he weren’t so obnoxious, if only he didn’t speak off the cuff or insult his critics, then maybe his enemies would stop calling him a Nazi. Maybe the protests would stop. Maybe the country could calm down.

It’s true that Trump’s tactlessness and unreflective speech can grate, even on those who support him. But let’s not pretend his critics hold anyone else to the same standard. Where was their outrage when Joe Biden declared that Trump supporters were “the only garbage I see,” smeared the GOP as “semi-fascists” and “terrorists,” or cursed at reporters who dared ask unscripted questions?

The rage over Trump’s language comes from anxiety. The ruling class members fear that his return to power could disrupt their ideological monopoly.

The same people clutching pearls over Trump’s tone cheered on mouthy scolds like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. They ignored threats by former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who warned Supreme Court justices against overturning Roe v. Wade outside their own courthouse. When it comes to rhetoric, Democrats don’t offend them — only Republicans do.

And the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. Anti-white racism is commonplace among Democrats. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) mocked Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) as a purveyor of “white tears” for disagreeing with her. Crockett also derided “mediocre white boys” who oppose race-based preferences and once referred to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott as “Governor Hot Wheels” without consequence. No apology. No media outcry. Just applause.

Source Link
Excerpt:

Is the Defense Department still preparing to fight biological warfare as if it’s 1970?

When preparing for biological warfare, most nations picture scenarios in which an enemy openly sprays traditional agents over wide areas to kill their adversaries.  However, revolutionary capabilities in the life sciences and biotechnology have transformed the threat. China’s approach to warfare, combined with these emerging technologies, reveals new vulnerabilities among Western forces that, to date, have not been fully acknowledged. In no small measure, this is due to the U.S. government’s continued reliance on a 20th-century strategy for countering weapons of mass destruction. In particular, as China is a major nuclear power, it cannot be threatened after it uses biological weapons as easily as a non-nuclear state. Given these points, can China be deterred from using such advanced biological weapons during a regional crisis in the Indo-Pacific, especially an invasion of Taiwan? And if not, is it possible to mitigate the damage from such a scenario?

Although Western attention has focused on the rapid expansion of China’s nuclear and conventional warfighting capabilities, one ought to expect equal analysis of China’s biological warfare potential. By examining China’s most recent efforts at biological research, we put forward that it has bypassed 20th-century Western concepts of biological warfare and has new capabilities that could be effective across the entire conflict spectrum. Given China’s new capabilities and nuclear arsenal, we assess that standard strategies of deterrence and protection likely will not work in the future. New approaches and new concepts will be necessary if the United States is to prepare itself for potentially new forms of biological warfare in the 21st century.

Source Link
Excerpt:

Free speech and religious freedom advocates, groups speaking out on the harms of radical gender ideology, and 22 states have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of two Vermont families who had their foster-care licenses revoked by Vermont because of their religious beliefs. On May 30, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the families filed their opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Wuoti v. Winters.

Despite a track record of success and high praise from social workers who knew Brian and Katy Wuoti and Bryan and Rebecca Gantt, Vermont’s Department for Children and Families revoked their foster-care licenses after the couples expressed their religiously inspired and widely held belief that girls cannot become boys or vice versa. The state applies this policy categorically—prohibiting families with these views from caring for any child, even if they sought to care for a relative, provide respite care for an infant for just one day, or care for a child who shared their faith.

“Vermont’s foster-care system is in crisis: There aren’t enough families to care for vulnerable kids,” said ADF Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse. “As numerous states have attested, religious families play a critical role in the foster-care system. Yet instead of inviting families from diverse backgrounds to help care for vulnerable kids, Vermont is shutting the door on them, putting its ideological agenda ahead of the needs of suffering kids. When it comes to finding kids a loving home, everyone should be able to recognize that the needs of kids should come first. And even Vermont agrees that the Wuotis and the Gantts are loving and caring parents willing to open their door to any child.”

Source Link
Excerpt:


The Trump administration’s rhetoric echoes the same old fantasy of racial purity that animated the 20th-century right.
Afrikaners from South Africa arrived Monday, May 12, 2025, at Dulles International Airport.(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / AP Photo)

On an otherwise unremarkable spring day, the Trump administration’s lawless assault on the rights of immigrants was interrupted by a government-chartered plane landing at Dulles International Airport. In a revealing reverse-image set piece, some 50 white Afrikaner immigrants from South Africa had arrived, in pursuit of an array of generous resettlement provisions. In February, Trump had signed an executive order granting them streamlined refugee status and a smooth path to US citizenship. The newcomers were feted with welcoming statements from the president, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and scores of MAGA-aligned commentators and pundits.

The same day that the Afrikaner “refugees” were getting the red-carpet treatment, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it was ending temporary protected status for immigrants from Afghanistan—many of whom had assisted the US war effort there and would thus face potential reprisals from the Taliban should they be deported. At a press conference after the Afrikaners’ flight landed, a reporter asked State Department spokesman Christopher Landau about the vast disparity in treatment between white immigrants with dubious claims of violent persecution in their homeland, and a group of their nonwhite counterparts who were exposed to real personal and political danger. Landau replied that “one of the criteria” in assigning refugee status to an immigrant population is making sure they can be “assimilated into our country.”

Source Link
Excerpt:

Asteroid 2024 YR4, once considered the highest impact risk to Earth ever recorded, is back in the spotlight — this time due to a slight increase in the chance that it could impact the moon in 2032.

Although now too distant to observe from Earth, the asteroid briefly came into view in May for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Using data from the telescope’s Near-Infrared Camera, a team led by Andy Rivkin of the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory refined predictions of where 2024 YR4 will be on Dec. 22, 2032 by nearly 20%. That revised trajectory nudged the odds of a lunar impact from 3.8% to 4.3%, according to a NASA update.

“As data comes in, it is normal for the impact probability to evolve,” the statement read. Even if a collision occurs, “it would not alter the moon’s orbit.”

Source Link
Excerpt:

Real constitutional crises are relatively rare in American history. In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall could have sparked one with his decision in Marbury v. Madison. In it, he deftly asserted that the Supreme Court had the power to invalidate laws or actions it saw as unconstitutional. That assertion didn’t cause a crisis in the fledgling nation mainly because it came in a decision that supported the Jefferson administration, and as such the president was not inclined to protest.

Then of course there was President Franklin Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme in 1937. In 1936, in the face of continuing 5-4 decisions going against his New Deal legislation, FDR’s Attorney General Homer Cummings proffered an idea penned by one of his predecessors in 1914, James Clark McReynolds: for every justice older than 70, a new justice should be appointed. Ironically, in 1936 McReynolds was a 75-year-old associate justice.

FDR’s legislation died in committee, but it would likely not have survived even if it had made it out of committee as it faced a great deal of bipartisan opposition. But it didn’t really matter because Justice Owen Roberts, who had been a thorn in the side of much of the New Deal legislation, joined the leftists in upholding West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish in 1937 and became a relatively reliable New Deal supporter going forward.

Source Link
Excerpt:

Is Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill “grotesque?” That’s what Elon Musk says. Though let’s be honest, it’s probably not the bill’s cost that’s bothering him. It’s the fact that the bill cuts the EV tax credits that keeps Tesla’s whole business model floating. Sorry, Elon!

Yes, the bill is big. It’s bold. It’s expensive. But it’s also everything we’ve been asking for, and then some. If you’re only looking at the price tag, you’re missing the bigger point: this bill actually delivers.

Do you like tax cuts? Because the Big Beautiful Bill is packed with them. Permanent Trump tax cuts? Locked in. Child tax credit? Raised to $2,500. Overtime pay? Tax-free. Tips? Also tax-free. That means bartenders, bellhops, and servers just got a raise without a single employer raising payroll. It’s basically a stimulus that doesn’t come with government strings. It’s economic empowerment. It’s dignity for the American worker. It’s someone-in-D.C.-finally-gets-it!

And before the deficit hawks start in on all this, let’s get one thing straight. This bill also includes the largest rollback of federal government bloat in modern history. $1.6 trillion in cuts. That’s not nothing! And guess what? The even deeper DOGE cuts are coming in a separate bill. Consider this round one of draining the swamp.

Source Link
Excerpt:

The U.S. Department of Education has notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (the “Commission”) that Columbia University is not in compliance with the Commission’s accreditation requirements.

From the DoEd Press Release:

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) today notified Middle States Commission on Higher Education (the Commission) that its member institution, Columbia University, is in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws and therefore fails to meet the standards for accreditation set by the Commission. Pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order, Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education, the Department has an obligation to promptly provide accreditors with any noncompliance findings related to member institutions.

The Commission’s “Standards for Accreditation and Requirements of Affiliation” state that “a candidate or accredited institution possesses or demonstrates … compliance with all applicable government laws and regulations.” In light of OCR’s determination, Columbia University no longer appears to meet the Commission’s accreditation standards.

“After Hamas’ October 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel, Columbia University’s leadership acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students on its campus. This is not only immoral, but also unlawful. Accreditors have an enormous public responsibility as gatekeepers of federal student aid. They determine which institutions are eligible for federal student loans and Pell Grants. Just as the Department of Education has an obligation to uphold federal antidiscrimination law, university accreditors have an obligation to ensure member institutions abide by their standards,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “We look forward to the Commission keeping the Department fully informed of actions taken to ensure Columbia’s compliance with accreditation standards including compliance with federal civil rights laws.” ….

Source Link
Excerpt:

Bottom line: As top labs race to build an AI master race, many turn a blind eye to dangerous behaviors – including lying, cheating, and manipulating users – that these systems increasingly exhibit. This recklessness, driven by commercial pressure, risks unleashing tools that could harm society in unpredictable ways.

Artificial intelligence pioneer Yoshua Bengio warns that AI development has become a reckless race, where the drive for more powerful systems often sidelines vital safety research. The competitive push to outpace rivals leaves ethical concerns by the wayside, risking serious consequences for society.

“There’s unfortunately a very competitive race between the leading labs, which pushes them towards focusing on capability to make the AI more and more intelligent, but not necessarily put enough emphasis and investment on [safety research],” Bengio told the Financial Times.

Bengio’s concern is well-founded. Many AI developers act like negligent parents watching their child throw rocks, casually insisting, “Don’t worry, he won’t hit anyone.” Rather than confronting these deceptive and harmful behaviors, labs prioritize market dominance and rapid growth. This mindset risks allowing AI systems to develop dangerous traits with real-world consequences that go far beyond mere errors or bias.

Source Link
Excerpt:

America’s defense industrial base is in the throes of major change. For the first time in 40 years, major power war is a real possibility. Conflicts in Ukraine and Israel are providing a harrowing glimpse of what that war might look like. Technology is evolving at a dizzying pace. Instead of peacetime efficiency, governments are prioritizing wartime surge capacity. The “China shock” and COVID-19 have destabilized global supply chains.

Amid these daunting realities, a new generation of defense technology companies has emerged. Anduril Industries — which was founded in 2017 and which I joined in 2020 — is one of them. Of course, defense technology companies aim to make money. But these companies also aim to disrupt and transform American defense by changing culture, attracting new and better talent, harnessing commercial technologies, championing software, bolstering competition, reforming acquisition practices, and more. Only time will tell if they are successful. But perhaps not as much time as one might think. As more defense technology companies scale to compete with traditional defense primes, the contours of a new defense industrial base are emerging.

Changes to this scope, speed, and scale naturally lead to questions, anxieties, and fears. To wit, these pages recently carried a warning about an impending “new era of defense giants.” According to this view, defense technology companies are engaging in corporate acquisitions that mirror the defense industry consolidation carried out by the traditional defense primes after the end of the Cold War. This new consolidation is hurting small businesses and making America’s defense industrial base less diverse, resilient, and innovative.

Source Link
Excerpt:

The Trump administration has charged the surveillance firm Palantir with agglomerating the US population’s personal data across government agencies, raising alarm about a centralized spying tool targeting hundreds of millions without oversight. Wall Street responded to the news by sending Palantir’s stock price to unprecedented heights.

During an end-of-year investor call this February, Palantir co-founder and militant Zionist Alex Karp bragged that his company was making a financial killing by enabling mass murder.

“Palantir is here to disrupt and make the institutions we partner with the very best in the world and, when it’s necessary, to scare enemies,” he stated, adding: “And on occasion, kill them.”  

Source Link
Excerpt:

To appreciate the complexities of policing online hate speech that underlie an April summary decision by Meta’s Oversight Board, let’s start with a musical detour through a 2017 US Supreme Court opinion called Matal v. Tam. The Court faced the First Amendment question in Matal of whether the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) could lawfully deny a band’s request to register its name––The Slants––as a trademark. The PTO claimed denial was okay because “slants” disparages Asians.

The wrinkle was that the band’s members are Asian and their frontman, Simon Tam, wanted “to ‘reclaim’ and ‘take ownership’ of stereotypes about people of Asian ethnicity.” As Tam explained:

We grew up and the notion of having slanted eyes was always considered a negative thing. Kids would pull their eyes back in a slant-eyed gesture to make fun of us . . .  I wanted to change it to something that was powerful, something that was considered beautiful or a point of pride instead.

Via Shutterstock.

This relates to “reappropriation by self-labeling” or “reclamation.” It involves marginalized groups seeking “to redefine the negative connotations” of a label and reclaiming “social power, as they become in charge of the word’s meaning.”

The Supreme Court sided with Tam, reasoning that the PTO’s denial of registration for The Slants because it disparages Asians “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” Rejecting the stance that speech isn’t constitutionally protected simply because it’s hateful, the Court asserted that:

Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Source Link
Excerpt:

In this article I will be proposing an early framework for a mental health intervention called depsychiatrization. Depsychiatrization describes the processes by which a diagnosed individual learns to expel psychiatrically induced self-concepts and substitute them for more empowering and nurturing understandings. These processes are not, in themselves, entirely novel, as they have been a part of many alternative movements throughout time. It is the ambition behind this proposal to formalize a way of helping and supporting people who would benefit from depsychiatrization, as well as supplying a legitimizing platform to stand on for those who wish to encourage growth without pathology.

Much has been written on the many ways in which psychiatry does harm to individuals seeking help for mental health issues: The medical treatments are far too often more harmful than beneficial, especially in the long run. The symptom-focused therapeutic treatments rarely produce sustainable outcomes leading to better lives. For instance, electroshock therapy is a disputed method at best, a harmful, medieval practice at worst.

Source Link
Excerpt:

President Donald Trump returned to Washington in January with a mandate from the American people to end mass migration. That same month, however, the foreign-born population living within America’s borders hit a record high, in an echo of the Roman Empire. Is it too late to save America from mass migration? Even if America is saved, will it be fundamentally changed in the process?

As a California farmer, Victor Davis Hanson faces the reality of this demographic change every day. As a historian and classicist, he knows all too well what happens to regimes and empires that fail to confront mass migration. This week, he joins “The Signal Sitdown” to discuss.

“Everybody,” Hanson told The Daily Signal, “is bewildered why [former President] Joe Biden, or whoever was controlling him, did this.”

Hanson described the pressure to keep migrants streaming into the country as “a consortium of interests” that include corporations (which desire cheap labor), other nations (which benefit from remittances), the cartels, and liberal ideologues.

Source Link
Excerpt:

On Wednesday, the Trump administration announced it was processing the family of Mohamed Soliman — the radical Islamist who allegedly set Jewish demonstrators ablaze in Boulder on Sunday — for removal from the country. Then came the order from a rogue judge blocking the administration.

Judge Gordon Gallagher’s two-page order halting the removal of Soliman’s wife and five children — all illegal aliens, according to Stephen Miller — isn’t merely a misapplication of justice. It is a direct assault on the executive branch’s constitutional authority. And if President Donald Trump continues to treat these rogue judicial decrees as legitimate, he not only cedes national security to ideological partisans in black robes — he permits a full-blown constitutional crisis to fester unchecked.

On Wednesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “have taken the family of suspected Boulder, Colorado terrorist, and illegal alien, Mohamed Soliman, into ICE custody.”

But within hours, Gallagher issued an order stating the Trump administration “SHALL NOT REMOVE Hayem El Gamal and her five children from the District of Colorado or the United States unless or until this Court or the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacates this Order.”