In Minneapolis a war is raging, and it’s no longer limited to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Thanks to criminal indictments, the battlefront has moved from city streets to federal courts. At issue are two different rights, each guaranteed by the First Amendment: freedom of the press and freedom of religion. Two defendants invoke the former, while members of the church that was the target of protest invoke the latter.

The star of this legal drama is former CNN anchor Don Lemon. On the morning of Jan. 18, according to prosecutors, Mr. Lemon joined 20 to 40 agitators in a “coordinated takeover-style attack” on Cities Church in St. Paul during Sunday service.

On Friday, Mr. Lemon and eight others were criminally charged on two counts stemming from that attack. The first is conspiracy to deprive Cities Church congregants of their religious liberty, and the second is interfering with their religious liberty in a house of worship. Though Mr. Lemon is the much bigger name, another arrested and charged was Georgia Fort, an independent journalist with roughly 8,000 followers on YouTube.

Those who broke up the service were protesting ICE deportations. They chose Cities Church, they say, because one of the church pastors, David Easterwood, is also an ICE official. In a statement after his client’s arrest, Mr. Lemon’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, invoked Mr. Lemon’s First Amendment right:

“Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done,” Mr. Lowell wrote. “The First Amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable.”

He’s correct—up to a point. Mr. Lemon’s constitutional right to report at Cities Church isn’t in question. But another part of the First Amendment is implicated here. The right of Americans to the “free exercise” of their faith is mentioned in the same amendment that protects Mr. Lemon’s speech. That is a right the protesters violated when they disrupted the service.

Scott Johnson, a St. Paul resident who writes the Power Line blog, cuts to the heart of the competing First Amendment claims with this question about Mr. Lemon and his fellow Cities Church protesters:

“Do they have a First Amendment right to interfere with the First Amendment rights of others?” asks Mr. Johnson. “I think the question answers itself.”

It isn’t an intractable clash of absolutes. Much will come down to factual rather than constitutional distinctions: Was Mr. Lemon inside Cities Church in his capacity as a journalist? Or was he also part of the group that plotted and executed the storming of Cities Church? Does it matter that the people accused of violating religious liberty here are private protesters and not state actors?

The attack itself was ugly—and the ugliness didn’t come from the Cities Church faithful. Protestors shouted at children, “Do you know your parents are Nazis? They’re going to burn in hell.” Amid the disturbance some must have wondered if this was the lead-up to another church shooting. The chaos and confusion were part of the plan.

The Justice Department has shown what it thinks. Prosecuting newsmen is a delicate proposition because it implicates a constitutional right. But religious liberty is also a constitutional right, even when exercised by mostly white Southern Baptists.

Their religious liberty claims haven’t received the attention they should from a media almost exclusively worried about Mr. Lemon’s claim to First Amendment protections—which he invoked that day. “I’m not here as an activist,” Mr. Lemon said during his livestream as the protestors disrupted the church. “I’m here as a journalist.” Another fact not getting attention is that the pastor said he asked protestors to leave the church and they didn’t.

We’ll see how it all plays out in the courts. In the meantime, here’s one last, basic fact that appears to be misunderstood: The First Amendment doesn’t give journalists a right to disobey laws.

“Don Lemon has exactly the same First Amendment right to barge into a church and disrupt a worship service as I would have to walk into his home and start reporting on his private dinner party—namely, none at all,” says Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

“Neither journalists nor protesters enjoy any constitutional right to invade someone else’s private space to report on the news or proclaim their message. By Lemon’s logic, the KKK could claim a First Amendment right to storm a black church during services and stage a protest. That gets the First Amendment completely backwards.”

Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.

William McGurn, Wall Street Journal

Humans possess a natural sense that there is something higher than themselves. Throughout history, some thinkers even argued that merely understanding the word “God” proves His existence. If God means the greatest possible being, and existing in reality is greater than existing only in the mind, then God must exist. Others claimed that since truth cannot be denied, and God is truth itself, God’s existence must also be undeniable.

These arguments sound convincing. Yet experience tells us that God’s existence is not obvious to everyone. A math equation may be clear to a trained mathematician and completely confusing to someone without that background. In the same way, even if God’s existence is implied by His nature, we do not directly know God’s nature. Because of that limitation, God’s existence is not self-evident to us.

People long for happiness or fulfillment, but that does not mean they automatically recognize God as the source of that desire. Simply thinking about something does not make it real. We can imagine a perfect island or a superhero, but imagination alone does not bring them into existence. If God exists, He must be more than an idea in the mind.

Some argue that belief in God belongs only to faith, not reason. St. Thomas Aquinas disagreed. While many truths about God are known through faith, some truths can also be known through reason. Even though God is far beyond our full understanding, we can know that God exists by looking at His effects in the world, moving from what we can see to what we cannot see, from visible realities to an invisible cause.

The Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas offers five ways of reasoning to God that begin with ordinary experience and work backward to a necessary source.

The argument from motion begins with change. Things move and change, but nothing moves itself into existence. Every change depends on something already actual. If we follow this chain back far enough, there must be a first source of motion that itself is not moved. This Unmoved Mover is what we call God.

The argument from cause and effect observes that everything in the world has a cause, and nothing causes itself. Causes form an ordered chain that cannot extend infinitely in the present moment. There must be a first, uncaused Cause that sustains all others. This First Cause is God.

The argument from possibility and necessity notes that many things come into being and pass away. They are contingent, they might or might not exist. If everything were contingent, then at some point nothing would have existed. If nothing ever existed, nothing would exist now. Therefore, there must be at least one necessary being that does not depend on anything else for existence. This necessary being is God.

The argument from degrees of perfection points to the fact that we judge things as better or worse, truer or less true, more or less beautiful. These comparisons only make sense if there is a highest standard by which all lesser degrees are measured. That ultimate standard of goodness, truth, beauty, and being itself is God.

The argument from design observes that non-intelligent things in nature act toward consistent goals. Trees grow in predictable ways. Planets follow stable paths. Natural processes operate with order and direction. Just as an arrow reaches its target because an archer directs it, nature appears ordered toward ends beyond itself. That directing intelligence is what we call God.

Quickly Answering Common Objections

Some object that an all-good and all-powerful God would not allow evil. Aquinas responds that God permits evil only to bring about a greater good. Evil does not exist on its own; it is a corruption of something good. For evil to exist at all, goodness must come first, and that ultimate Goodness is God.

Others argue that nature and human reason explain everything, making God unnecessary. Aquinas replies that nature itself requires a source and a goal, and human reason can fail or change. Anything that changes or can fail must depend on something that does not change or fail. That unchanging foundation is God.

Going Further

God’s existence may not be obvious at first glance, but it is knowable. By reflecting on motion, causality, contingency, degrees of perfection, and design, we are led beyond the visible world to an invisible but necessary cause.

God is the explanation for change, cause and effect, existence itself, objective standards of goodness and truth, and the order we observe in nature. These arguments do not give us everything about who God is, but they do show us that God is.

Mike Schramm, Intellectual Takeout

Florida stands at a consequential moment in the national debate over illegal immigration.

The state has already moved decisively to protect taxpayers, reinforce the rule of law, and support federal agents. What comes next should be durable, voter-approved, and immune to the shifting moods of Washington.

A Florida-tailored constitutional amendment modeled on the core framework of California’s Proposition 187 represents the logical next step, not as nostalgia, but as evolution.

Properly adapted to Florida’s legal system and adopted through the state’s referendum process, such a measure would anchor immigration control in constitutional certainty. Simultaneously, public confidence would be bolstered, after being shaken by the Minnesota episodes and their mixed response inside the Republican Party.

The urgency is not abstract. Late last month, prominent Florida Republicans publicly criticized the Donald Trump administration’s immigration stance following the firestorm in Minnesota.

Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia told The New York Times that anti-illegal alien measures had “gone too far.” She cited family separations, aggressive raids, and the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. Garcia warned that the White House’s approach could cost Republicans the midterms, explicitly blaming Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller.

Garcia, a former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) public affairs official and co-founder of Latinas for Trump, described a culture of fear and personal concern for her own family. This channeled legacy media figures substantial wattage for their anti-GOP noise machine.

Congresswoman María Elvira Salazar echoed Garcia’s concerns in a Washington Examiner op-ed. She argued that aggressive moves against illegal immigrants were eroding Republican support among Hispanic voters. She warned that Hispanics were “leaving the GOP in large numbers” and urged DHS to focus on major public safety threats rather than broadly targeting illegal aliens.

Around the same time, Congressman Carlos Gimenez told Newsmax that high-profile raids and the Minneapolis deaths were politically damaging. He bluntly opined that Trump administration tactics were hurting Republican chances in the midterms.

These comments followed notorious events in Minneapolis that reverberate nationwide.

As everyone and his or her great-grandmother surely knows, two U.S. citizens were fatally shot last month by federal immigration officers during enforcement operations. Renée Nicole Good was killed amid an ICE raid after advancing her car into an agent. Alex Pretti, an armed anti-DHS protester, was shot while physically interfering with officers who were making an arrest.

Both deaths were captured or contested by video evidence and sparked mass protests, press scrutiny, and bipartisan rancor. These incidents intensified debate over law enforcement tactics, use of deadly force, and the politics of immigration control.

The path forward is not retreat, hesitation, or rhetorical softening. It is clarity. A Florida constitutional amendment modeled on Proposition 187 would shift the focus from theatrical federal raids to clear, lawful, state-grounded rules that protect public resources while crippling illegal immigration.

California’s Proposition 187, passed by voters in 1994 by a near-20-point margin, sought to deny illegal aliens access to most state-funded public services. It required verification and reporting of immigration status by state and local agencies.

Its provisions included barring illegal immigrants from non-emergency public benefits, denying non-emergency publicly funded healthcare, restricting access to public education, mandating cooperation with federal authorities, and imposing penalties for false documentation and noncompliant public employees.

Proposition 187 also attempted to construct a parallel state enforcement architecture that went further than many remember. The initiative required state and local police to verify immigration status during arrests for suspected violations of state or federal law. This meant reporting those individuals to federal immigration authorities, embedding immigration screening into routine policing.

Furthermore, Proposition 187 directed the California Attorney General to create and maintain a statewide system for collecting, tracking, and transmitting reports of suspected illegal aliens from schools, hospitals, and social service agencies to federal officials. It also authorized civil actions against state or local agencies that failed to enforce its provisions. Private citizens were empowered to sue government bodies for noncompliance, thereby adding a layer of citizen-driven accountability.

At the same time, Proposition 187 explicitly preserved access to emergency medical care, disaster relief, and immunizations. Clearly, its architects intended exclusion from taxpayer-funded benefits to function as a deterrent, not as a denial of lifesaving aid. This broader enforcement ecosystem, largely erased from public memory, is precisely what makes a carefully-modernized, constitutionally-grounded Florida adaptation so essential today.

Although most of Proposition 187 was enjoined and ultimately nullified through federal district court agreements by 1999, its underlying premise remains politically potent and widely supported.

Florida is positioned to do what California could not. The legal pathway is clear.

Article XI of the Florida Constitution allows amendments through legislative referral or citizen initiative. A legislative referral requires a three-fifths vote in both chambers and then approval by 60 percent of voters at a general election. A citizen initiative requires signatures equal to eight percent of the votes cast in the last presidential election statewide and in at least half of Florida’s congressional districts. This is followed by Florida Supreme Court review and the same 60-percent voter approval.

Both routes ensure broad consensus and democratic legitimacy.

Florida has already laid the groundwork. Under Governor Ron DeSantis, the state enacted Senate Bill 1718 in 2023, mandating E-Verify for employers with 25 or more employees. It criminalized human smuggling with enhanced penalties, requiring hospitals to collect immigration status data, and penalized businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

In 2025, Florida expanded these efforts through Senate Bills 2-C and 4-C, allocating more than $298 million for immigration enforcement infrastructure. In-state tuition for illegal aliens was repealed, while a State Board of Immigration Enforcement was created. All police agencies in Florida were made to fully cooperate with DHS, and some, including all statewide departments and county sheriff’s offices, were deputized to administer immigration law.

This facilitated large-scale joint operations that have resulted in thousands of arrests, with multitudes more certain to follow.

A constitutional amendment, featuring every aspect of Proposition 187 with each one tailored to Florida law and binding judicial precedent, is the logical next step. Court challenges would be inevitable. Proposition 187 faced immediate injunctions over federal preemption and equal protection claims, particularly regarding education.

Fortunately, the legal landscape has changed.

Florida, with its solidly Republican state government and largely GOP electorate, is the ideal staging ground for a clean, contemporary test case. Any resulting litigation would almost certainly reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Its 6-3 conservative majority has shown openness to state authority that complements, if not amplifies, federal law enforcement.

Florida would not be acting only for itself. Success would send a signal nationwide.

Just as California once shaped national policy debates, Florida could now lead a new chapter by demonstrating that firm immigration law enforcement can be constitutional, voter-driven, and crystalline in its clarity. The Sunshine State would become a beacon for states seeking to protect public resources, and stymie the scourge of illegal immigration, without surrendering to political chaos or moral panic.

The faded California dream does not need to remain phantasmagorical. In Florida, it can be reborn through constitutional action that reflects the will of voters, restoring confidence in immigration control. This offers a sound model for national renewal grounded in law, order, and democratic legitimacy.

America needs it now, more than ever.

Dr. Joseph Ford Cotto is the creator, host, and producer of News Sight, delivering sharp insights on the key events that shape our lives. He publishes Dr. Cotto’s Digest, sharing how business and the economy really impact us all. During the 2024 presidential race, he developed the Five-Point Forecast, which accurately predicted Donald Trump’s national victory and correctly called every swing state. Cotto holds a doctorate in business administration and is a Lean Six Sigma Certified Black Belt.

BREAKING: In a HUGE win, US Attorney Jeanine Pirro says Washington DC is now solving the MOST homicide cases in HISTORY after President Trump surged the feds, even the DEMOCRAT Mayor is stunned Imagine that — the experts were wrong, AGAIN!

“We are solving this problem. We are solving more homicide cases than we ever have in the district!” “And the mayor now is seeing what this combined resource allocation is doing.” “We’ve got all kinds of benefits with technology and new databases and plugging in all kinds of tracking that she didn’t have before.” “And, you know, the mayor now, the mayor is always believed in making the city safe. What the president has done and what the Attorney General Pam Bondi has done is they’ve created the equation and the pieces to the equation that get us to the point where we get a good resolution.”

Yigal Carmon, President and cofounder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), issued a blunt warning to President Trump in a Daily Brief published January 30, 2026: Hamas and similar Islamist groups are locked into a jihadist ideology that no amount of economic prosperity can break. Carmon argues that even if Gaza were rebuilt into a luxurious “Middle East Riviera” with beaches and hotels, these groups would still prioritize ideology such as martyrdom and Israel’s destruction, over material comforts or the “good life” ideal, which he argues motivates the West. He points to pre-October 7 Gaza, where residents enjoyed restaurants, promenades, and modern buildings, and Hamas leaders’ repeated rejection of generous statehood offers as evidence that ideology always prevails over incentives.

Carmon’s focus on the enduring power of radical indoctrination is valid. Extremist beliefs are deeply rooted and resilient. Yet his view is overly pessimistic and overlooks how shared economic interests have repeatedly moderated conflict in the Middle East. Even though he doesn’t buy into a stark binary, i.e., “Riviera or ideology,” he nonetheless downplays prosperity and mutual investment as empirically successful mechanisms for creating new political realities, even among former adversaries.

History demonstrates that when parties gain a direct stake in peace through finance and security, behavior changes. The Abraham Accords provide the strongest recent proof. Starting in 2020, nations like the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, once aligned with anti-Israel rhetoric, normalized ties with Israel. This led to more than simple diplomatic gestures: direct flights, tech partnerships, tourism booms, energy deals, and billions in trade and investment. Emirati and Bahraini leaders, previously influenced by the same ideological currents, now oversee hotels, tech hubs, and ports that rely on stable relations with Israel. Their citizens encounter Israelis as tourists and business partners, normalizing what was once unthinkable.

These shifts didn’t require abandoning ideology entirely; they recalibrated it because peace proved profitable and secure. Similar patterns hold in Jordan and Egypt, where decades-old peace treaties endure amid turmoil thanks to economic benefits, U.S. aid linked to stability, and military cooperation.

Carmon suggests that only “corrupt jihadis,” such as certain leaders, can be swayed. But corruption and ideology coexist, and shared investment builds vested interests in stability that, over time, sideline extremists.

In fact, many Arab and Gulf states deploy incentives that mold ideological objectives in providing for their own security, for example, by exporting extremism to shield their own regimes. They fund or openly court groups like Hamas, Hezb’allah, or the Houthis to direct radical energy outward, preserving domestic calm and protecting oil wealth. Qatar hosts Hamas leaders in luxury, while Iran arms proxies regionally. This keeps palaces and skyscrapers safe.

Trump’s approach simply reverses this dynamic. Rather than paying extremists to stay quiet, it invites regional players to invest in Gaza’s rebuilding, with commitments to security and deradicalization. The “Riviera” vision isn’t a direct bribe to street-level fighters; it’s an opportunity for Gulf sovereign funds, Egyptian contractors, Jordanian firms, and moderate Palestinian entrepreneurs to develop hotels, ports, and tech zones they own and profit from. Once capital is committed, these stakeholders have every reason to block rockets or tunnels that threaten their returns

This mirrors the Abraham Accords: former enemies became co-investors, turning mutual vulnerability into mutual protection.

Carmon frames the proposal as naively offering luxury to figures like Yahya Sinwar or Ismail Haniyeh. That’s a misreading. The plan, floated by Jared Kushner and others, conditions reconstruction on Hamas’s defeat and removal, with governance shifting to entities committed to security and development. Rewards like investment, trade, tourism revenue, and normalized ties aim at pragmatic elites among Palestinians, Arabs, and internationals who can enforce stability.

These leaders would drive deradicalization: reforming schools, diversifying media, and creating jobs that rival the appeal of martyrdom. Grassroots change takes generations, but it gains traction when former hardliners (like Anwar Sadat, once sympathetic to Nazis, or UAE figures who boycotted Israel) become advocates because their prosperity depends on it.

Carmon’s implied alternative, that ideology must be crushed militarily, with no moderation possible, risks endless cycles of destruction and resurgence. Gaza has been leveled repeatedly, yet Hamas rebuilds. Military victory alone creates vacuums that extremists exploit.

Incentives, exposure, and shared stakes provide the only viable alternative to destruction. Education shifts when children view Israelis as partners. A Gazan engineer collaborating on a joint tech project with Emirati and Israeli colleagues sees the world anew. Economic opportunity undercuts the narrative that jihad offers the only path to dignity.

Carmon is correct to highlight the strength of ideology and the irredeemability of some actors. Reform won’t be easy to attain, and it will not occur overnight. But he overstates its permanence and undervalues the transformative potential of shared investment. The Abraham Accords showed that even entrenched hostility can evolve when elites gain concrete stakes in peace. Applying that model to Gaza, offering returns, security, and a stable future to those willing to dismantle hate, isn’t naive. It’s the strategy that has succeeded in the modern Middle East without condemning the region to endless war.

Carmon is also correct to wonder whether any “alliance” with enemies might alienate friends. Every grand compromise, however, begins with such a concern. Any effort to hard reform is easily dismissed as impossible or dangerous, but reform is no more impossible or dangerous than is acquiescence as an agent of change. The very depth and resilience of ideology demands concerted, coordinated, and equally resilient pressure to reform.

Dismissing the effort risks perpetuating the very conflict Carmon warns against.

Monte Donohew, American Thinker

Organizations including the Chinese-American Planning Council and the Chinese Progressive Association — both of which have ties to the Chinese Communist Party’s overseas influence network — are among the signatories urging Congress to defund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Border Patrol.Subscribe

Those groups joined more than 1,000 organizations in a coordinated letter demanding that lawmakers halt all funding for federal immigration enforcement agencies, a move that would effectively eliminate interior enforcement and deportation operations nationwide. The letter, organized by Amnesty International USA, does not call for reforms or oversight but for the removal of enforcement capacity itself.

The records of the Chinese-American Planning Council and the Chinese Progressive Association illustrate how foreign-linked financial and personnel networks intersect with domestic immigration activism at the same time Congress is being pressured to dismantle federal immigration enforcement.

Chinese-American Planning Council

A review of CPC’s financial records discovered Chinese government-linked sources pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the nonprofit in recent years. CPC is currently under investigation for these China ties and immigration enforcement obstructionist agenda.

The council has received as much as $445,969 in donations from sources with ties to the Chinese government since 2018. State-run enterprises such as Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) and Bank of China have provided financial assistance to CPC in recent years, records show.

CPC also appears to have significant financial and personnel links to a New York-based nonprofit, which, in turn, has extensive ties to Beijing and a CCP influence and intelligence arm.

The Daily Caller has revealed these ties extensively.

Chinese Progressive Association

CPA has received considerable media attention for its ties to the Chinese Communist Party, dating back to its founding and continuing well into the present.

The association was founded in San Francisco in 1972 by operatives of the Maoist militant group I Wor Kuen, which supported the Chinese Communist Party.

From the start, it was doing pro-China work.

As one of its founders, Fay Wong, explained: “China was an inspiration to us, many of us were from China and those us who were not just found what China was able to accomplish, with the revolution, was very inspiring.”

A few years later, I Wor Kuen also set up groups called the Chinese Progressive Association in Boston and New York, the latter of which signed the Amnesty International ICE demand letter.

When he was executive director of CPA-San Francisco in 2012, Alex Tom started the China Education and Exposure Program to deepen ties between American leftists and China. “We built relationships with people in the [Communist] Party,” Tom said on the May 26 episode of “The Red Nation” podcast.

Other senior officials at the CPA-San Francisco worked to further the aims of Hanban, the Chinese government entity that runs controversial Confucius Institutes in the U.S.

Confucius Institutes embed deeply inside universities to show students a sympathetic view of China replete with propaganda. They also try to censor what the host university can discuss regarding China and have been flagged for espionage ties.

The CPA in Boston has even worked officially with the Chinese Consulate in New York.

CPC also appears to have significant financial and personnel links to a New York-based nonprofit, which, in turn, has extensive ties to Beijing and a CCP influence and intelligence arm.

The association was founded in San Francisco in 1972 by operatives of the Maoist militant group I Wor Kuen, which supported the Chinese Communist Party.

The Daily Caller has revealed these ties extensively.

Chinese Progressive Association

CPA has received considerable media attention for its ties to the Chinese Communist Party, dating back to its founding and continuing well into the present.

Other senior officials at the CPA-San Francisco worked to further the aims of Hanban, the Chinese government entity that runs controversial Confucius Institutes in the U.S.

From the start, it was doing pro-China work.

As one of its founders, Fay Wong, explained: “China was an inspiration to us, many of us were from China and those us who were not just found what China was able to accomplish, with the revolution, was very inspiring.”

A few years later, I Wor Kuen also set up groups called the Chinese Progressive Association in Boston and New York, the latter of which signed the Amnesty International ICE demand letter.

When he was executive director of CPA-San Francisco in 2012, Alex Tom started the China Education and Exposure Program to deepen ties between American leftists and China. “We built relationships with people in the [Communist] Party,” Tom said on the May 26 episode of “The Red Nation” podcast.

Confucius Institutes embed deeply inside universities to show students a sympathetic view of China replete with propaganda. They also try to censor what the host university can discuss regarding China and have been flagged for espionage ties.

The CPA in Boston has even worked officially with the Chinese Consulate in New York.

Natalie Winters

Imagine if the people who quietly or secretly support President Trump, ICE, borders, private property, laws against murder and rape, and the U.S. Bill of Rights spoke up in Minneapolis. Or anywhere else. Just imagine.

They won’t have purple hair, or live as parasites off federal COVID subsidies or in their parents’ basements. These are the winners, achievers, producers and gainfully employed members of civilization. Not the types who accept money from George and Alex Soros to burn down civilization, or who are simply so psychotic they actually wish to do so.

Just imagine if we heard from the good people as loudly and decisively as we hear from the freaks, goons and sociopaths. Just imagine.

“The traditional politician asks for your vote so that they can fix your life, as if they know what you need. What I say is, I ask for your vote so that I can give you back the power to be the architect of your own life,” said Javier Milei, pro-liberty president of Argentina.

Just imagine.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

You don’t get to move here from a village on the other side of the world and tell American citizens we don’t have a right to enforce our laws.

It doesn’t work that way.

@JohnStrandUSA on X

Actually, it DOES work that way as Omar, Mamdani and others continue to preach, plot and profit at the expense of American tax dollars and the American Constitution they loathe.

Until these people are arrested, deported and/or tried for treason, we the people remain hostages in an occupied nation.

Don’t get me wrong — President Trump is the greatest, an authentic American hero. But we are not a free nation once again until the bad guys HANG.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

“Physician, heal thyself!” Jesus said to those gathered in the synagogue at Nazareth.

The admonition was aimed at hypocrisy and moral blindness — a warning that those who presume authority must first examine their own conduct.

Today, someone needs to repeat those words to health care professionals who have allowed Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) to corrode their ethics and professionalism.

That warning applies just as much to nursing as it does to medicine.

Nursing emerged as a modern profession in the mid-19th century under the leadership of Florence Nightingale. In 1893, the Nightingale Pledge codified the profession’s moral foundation, committing nurses to “devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care” and to “do no harm.” Compassion, neutrality, and duty were not optional — they were the profession’s reason for being.

The American Nursing Association Code of Ethics requires, “The nurse’s primary commitment is to the patient, whether an individual, family, group, community, or population.” I presume groups include Republicans, Trump supporters, and ICE agents. 

Medicine, with nursing as one of its pillars, exists to heal the sick and comfort the vulnerable. While some may be drawn to health care for technical challenges, flexible schedules, or job security, the vast majority of nurses enter the profession with sincere intentions to help others. That shared moral commitment is what allows patients to trust those caring for them during moments of fear, pain, and helplessness.

Which makes the following question unavoidable: Why are some nurses now publicly calling for the torture, abuse, and death of people whose political views they dislike?

As a surgeon, I can state unequivocally that political affiliation does not alter human anatomy, physiology, or disease. Blood vessels do not constrict based on voting history. Tumors do not grow faster in conservatives. Gravity, bullets, and blunt trauma are blissfully indifferent to ideology. Health care professionals are expected to be the same — delivering the best possible care regardless of race, religion, class, or politics.

Yet Trump Derangement Syndrome has reached pandemic levels among a militant and increasingly visible cadre of health care professionals, infecting even those entrusted with others’ lives. Increasingly, a vocal minority of nurses and other health care workers – individuals granted extraordinary access and authority — openly fantasize about harming political opponents. This is not merely unprofessional behavior. It is a profound ethical failure.

Consider the case of a nurse at Virginia Commonwealth University Health who was fired after posting TikTok videos suggesting ways to harm ICE agents. This was not abstract rhetoric. She proposed injecting agents with succinylcholine, a neuromuscular blocking agent that causes complete muscle paralysis, including of the respiratory muscles. Without ventilatory support, the result is death. The drug has long been described as an “ideal murder weapon” precisely because it leaves little external evidence.

A trained nurse would understand this. Which makes her suggestion all the more chilling. This was not ignorance. It was medically informed malice.

The nurse also suggested filling water guns with poison ivy or poison oak extract to spray into agents’ faces. If that proved ineffective, another nurse recommended that single female nurses use dating apps to lure ICE agents out for drinks, spike those drinks with laxatives, and incapacitate them. Nurse Ratched, reporting for duty. 

This nurse likely entered the profession with altruistic intentions. But the TDS mind virus transformed her from caregiver to would-be executioner — all while basking in the applause and clicks of social media.

These nurses are not alone.

An Ohio nurse publicly wished that White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt would suffer a fourth-degree perineal tear while delivering her second child. Such an injury involves tearing through the vaginal wall, anal sphincter, and into the rectum — requiring surgical repair and risking lifelong fecal incontinence and sexual dysfunction. This is not casual cruelty. It is grotesque medical sadism.

A Florida nurse echoed the sentiment in even more graphic terms, writing online: “I hope you f*cking rip from bow to stern and never sh*t normally again, you c*nt.” This is the language of hatred, not healing. Yet it came from someone entrusted with patient care and human well-being.

Not surprisingly, her Florida nursing license was promptly revoked.

If a family member of mine were hospitalized, these are precisely the nurses I would hope not to encounter.

Then there is Erik Martindale, a Florida nurse anesthetist, who publicly declared that he would not provide anesthesia for “MAGA” patients, claiming it was his “ethical oath” to do so. He later suggested his account had been “hacked,” a defense now as familiar as it is unconvincing. 

Would Mr. Martindale allow a conservative patient to awaken during surgery — a rare but devastating complication — and consider it justified? Would pain control become a political privilege? Once ideology dictates care, there is no logical stopping point. History offers grim reminders of where that road leads.

Defenders of such conduct often invoke “free speech.” But health care is not a college quad or faculty lounge. The American Nurses Association Code of Ethics explicitly requires compassion and respect for every patient, regardless of “social or political status.” Political discrimination is not protected expression within the profession. It is an ethical violation.

We saw a preview of this moral decay during COVID. Remember the TikTok nurses dancing in hospital corridors, turning intensive care units into makeshift discos? I understand the stress health care workers endured during the early pandemic. Blowing off steam is human.

But broadcasting choreographed routines to millions, while families were barred from visiting dying loved ones, signaled something deeply wrong. I was one of those family members. Watching nurses dance for clicks while patients died alone was neither comforting nor inspiring. It was alienating.

In 2018, a Georgia dermatologist lost her medical license after filming and social media posting herself singing and dancing over sedated patients during surgery. Was that performance meant to prepare her for operating or to monetize social media attention? The line between professionalism and narcissism had already been crossed.

Health care is not activism. A hospital is not a protest rally. A patient is not a political avatar.

The moment a nurse or physician begins sorting patients into deserving and undeserving categories based on ideology, the profession ceases to be one of healing and becomes something far more dangerous. History offers grim reminders of what happens when medicine is subordinated to political belief rather than ethical duty.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is not merely a cultural punchline. In health care, it manifests as moral corrosion. It replaces compassion with contempt, restraint with rage, and professionalism with performative cruelty. It convinces otherwise decent people that harming others is virtuous so long as the target is politically acceptable.

Patients do not arrive at hospitals as Republicans or Democrats. They come frightened, vulnerable, and often powerless. They must trust that those caring for them will place duty above ideology. Once that trust is broken, the entire system rots from within.

“Physician, heal thyself” was not simply a rebuke. It was a warning. If health care professionals cannot diagnose their own moral sickness, they risk becoming the very thing they once swore to oppose. Nurses and doctors must decide whether their highest allegiance is to politics, or to the sacred obligation they voluntarily assumed.

There can be no coexistence between political hatred and medical ethics. One of them must give way.

Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a physician and writer.  Follow me on X @retinaldoctor, Substack Dr. Brian’s Substack, Truth Social @BrianJoondeph, LinkedIn @Brian Joondeph, and email brianjoondeph@gmail.com.

NOTE: KEEP ON SCROLLING; MY TABLET IS MESSED UP. 

Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House has been a parade of bold, daring accomplishments. Few presidents would dare to dream of matching it.

Elected with a resounding mandate in 2024, Trump wasted no time implementing a transformative agenda that reshaped the nation in tangible, measurable ways. He secured the Mexican border with unprecedented rigor. He is revitalizing the economy through deregulation and tax relief. From brokering international peace deals to dismantling bureaucratic waste, Trump’s administration compiled 365 wins in 365 days.

On immigration, Trump achieved negative net migration for the first time in fifty years, removing over 2.6 million illegal aliens, including 400,000 convicted or charged criminals. Meanwhile, fentanyl trafficking was reduced across the southern border by 56 percent. Border wall construction resumed in critical sectors like El Paso and the Rio Grande Valley.

The Remain in Mexico policy was reinstated, and catch-and-release ended nationwide, resulting in zero interior releases for eight consecutive months. ICE enforcement capacity doubled through aggressive recruitment, the largest surge in agency history. Temporary protected status for over 500,000 migrants was revoked, and refugee resettlement was dramatically curtailed to protect American security.

Homicides fell by the largest margin in U.S. history, overdoses dropped 21 percent, and task forces in Washington D.C., Memphis, Chicago, and New Orleans brought murders to decades-long lows. The Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gangs were dismantled, while nationwide federal law enforcement operations restored deterrence to urban centers and curtailed violent criminal networks.

The Trump administration’s Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office resumed delivering direct support to victims, and 62,000 missing migrant children were rescued from trafficking and exploitation.

Inflation stabilized at 2.4 percent, mortgage rates hit three-year lows, and existing home sales reached the strongest pace in three years. The Working Families Tax Cut saved 5.9 million jobs, eliminated taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits for seniors. Deregulation efforts produced $5 trillion in savings while attracting $10 trillion in domestic investment.

Trump’s foreign policy achievements were equally sweeping.

The Israel-Hamas conflict ended with the Gaza Peace Plan. Ceasefires were brokered between Israel and Iran, Armenia and Azerbaijan, India and Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, Cambodia and Thailand, Kosovo and Serbia, and Egypt and Ethiopia. Groundwork was laid to hopefully resolve Ukraine-Russia tensions. Iran’s nuclear program was neutralized through military and intelligence action. Narcoterrorist Nicolás Maduro was captured, crippling illicit revenue streams for the Venezuelan regime.

U.S. military readiness surged through the largest investment in decades, artificial intelligence was integrated into defense planning, VA backlogs were cut 60 percent, and more than 51,000 homeless veterans were housed.

Yet, despite these unprecedented accomplishments and so many more, public perception remains strikingly disconnected from reality.

The January New York Times/Siena College poll found that only 32 percent of registered voters believed the country was better off than when Trump returned to office. 49 percent said it was worse. Trump’s approval rating stood at 40 percent, disapproval at 56 percent, and a majority of respondents, 55-42 percent, described his first year as unsuccessful.

These figures were released just days after the White House’s “365 Wins in 365 Days” announcement. They reveal a populace largely unmoved by achievements that objectively transformed policy, economy, and security.

Skepticism of this polling is not misplaced. The New York Times has long demonstrated a pattern of framing narratives through a left-leaning lens. It often underreports Republican accomplishments while amplifying Democratic perspectives. Trump condemned the poll as “fake” and “fraudulent,” denouncing it on Truth Social as a rigged effort to undermine his agenda. He promised to incorporate it into a multibillion-dollar defamation suit against the Times.

Yet even as the survey deserves profound suspicion, its existence reflects the reality of perception. These numbers shape voter attitudes and inform media-driven narratives that cannot be ignored. Republicans in this midterm year face a strategic imperative: they must seize Trump’s first-year successes as the centerpiece of their messaging.

From the 89-percent drop in wholesale egg prices to the $1,100 annual boost in real earnings, from the elimination of catch-and-release to the dismantling of transnational gangs, the facts are overwhelmingly positive and tangible. Every elected Republican—federal, state, and local—should internalize these victories and integrate them into debates, campaigns, and public engagements.

The GOP’s focus must be on energizing Trump supporters and persuadable voters through evidence-based celebration of his staggering accomplishments. Not attempting to convince lefty ideologues to give Trumpism a second look. The midterm outcome hinges on turnout, not conversion.

Paul Gottfried, in his January 20 essay Does America Want to Be Saved?, underscores the enduring polarization that shapes the electoral landscape. He recognizes Trump as “by far the most transformative” president he has observed since the Eisenhower era. Gottfried cites immigration law enforcement, tax relief, economic growth, anti-discrimination policies protecting white men, peace deals, and targeted law enforcement as unparalleled achievements.

Yet Gottfried cautions that these victories often fail to sway a leftist electorate whose base remains entrenched, ideologically committed, and resistant to persuasion. He notes that this opposition encompasses many government workers, certain racial minorities, and ideological constituencies such as unmarried college-educated women. These opponents of Trump mobilize efficiently in elections, maintaining turnout levels that are hard for Republicans to match.

The key insight is stark but actionable: the GOP cannot rely on swaying the ideologically rigid opposition but can, and must, motivate its own voters by highlighting Trump’s transformative wins.

In this hyper-polarized environment, Republicans should pivot to offense, showcasing clear, measurable improvements. There are record-low border crossings, historic reductions in crime, dramatic economic gains, and foreign policy breakthroughs. That approach does not promise universal approval. However, it ensures that the electorate sympathetic to Trump’s agenda understands the stakes and responds accordingly at the ballot box.

Ultimately, Trump’s first year stands as a case study in extraordinary achievement amid widespread misperception.

His administration delivered measurable benefits across immigration, crime, the economy, foreign policy, and government efficiency. Yet public recognition lags, distorted by media bias and partisan framing. Republicans’ success in November depends less on convincing the unreachable left than on rallying their own voters around the facts of a proven record.

Energizing the base through specific, demonstrable accomplishments, rather than general rhetoric, offers the clearest path to preserving congressional majorities and consolidating America First gains. This is the strategic lesson of 2026: objective success must be communicated relentlessly to counter a distorted public narrative.

Voter motivation, grounded in clear evidence of achievement, is the GOP’s most powerful tool.

Trump’s first year was not merely good; it was transformational. The disconnect between reality and perception is not a weakness of policy but a challenge in persuasion. Republicans must pivot, act decisively, and harness the power of undeniable facts to win hearts, votes, and, ultimately, the American future.

John Ford Cotto, American Thinker

Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House has been a parade of bold, daring accomplishments. Few presidents would dare to dream of matching it.

Elected with a resounding mandate in 2024, Trump wasted no time implementing a transformative agenda that reshaped the nation in tangible, measurable ways. He secured the Mexican border with unprecedented rigor. He is revitalizing the economy through deregulation and tax relief. From brokering international peace deals to dismantling bureaucratic waste, Trump’s administration compiled 365 wins in 365 days.

On immigration, Trump achieved negative net migration for the first time in fifty years, removing over 2.6 million illegal aliens, including 400,000 convicted or charged criminals. Meanwhile, fentanyl trafficking was reduced across the southern border by 56 percent. Border wall construction resumed in critical sectors like El Paso and the Rio Grande Valley.

The Remain in Mexico policy was reinstated, and catch-and-release ended nationwide, resulting in zero interior releases for eight consecutive months. ICE enforcement capacity doubled through aggressive recruitment, the largest surge in agency history. Temporary protected status for over 500,000 migrants was revoked, and refugee resettlement was dramatically curtailed to protect American security.