Dishonest people say Trump is cutting all research funding, such as cancer and Alzheimer’s research. It’s untrue. They know it’s untrue, but they’re hysterical about Trump and they must make up a reason. However, even if Trump DID cut 100 percent of research by the government, we’d still have it. How? From the same sources who pay for it now: the private sector. The federal government’s research is funded 100 percent by taxes, plus inflation (created by the Federal Reserve to finance the massive federal debt). If we cut the cost of government by 70 or 80 percent, and reduced inflation in the process, the demand for research would be met by the private sector.

Too many people want research for this not to happen. It’s ignorant to believe that without government, there would be no cancer or Alzheimer’s research. The truth is actually the opposite: Without a robust and rich private sector, there would be no government. Private sector research would be better, honest and not politicized. Shysters and sociopaths like Fauci would not flourish in private sector research. Getting government OUT of research would be the best thing to happen to medicine.

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on X at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, @DrHurd on TruthSocial. Dr. Hurd is also now a Newsmax Insider!

It’s not gonna work.

Democrats keep trying to make federal worker victimhood happen. No matter how often they’re told it’s not happening, they keep tripling, quadrupling and decupling down on it.

Next up is Trump’s speech to Congress.

Some Senate and House Dems are planning to boycott it.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), one of the most senior Democrats in the Senate, will not attend Trump’s speech on Tuesday, Axios has learned

Neither will Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who will instead host an online town hall.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told Axios he is leaning against attending the speech because “when Trump does it, it’s not a serious event.”

“We want to make [clear] that things are not business as usual. Things are falling apart,” said Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), a DPCC co-chair who is undecided on attending.

Nearly a dozen House and Senate Democrats told Axios they are either leaning against attending the speech or undecided.

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) all declined to commit to attending.

So did Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.).

At least that’s a smarter plan than trying to bring America’s least favorite victims in it for media coverage.

Democrats on Capitol Hill have bashed President Trump over mass federal firings since the first dismissals began in January. On Tuesday, they’re hoping to hold a human mirror to what that policy has done.

When Trump addresses a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, he’ll be staring into a packed House chamber featuring not only Republican allies and Democratic adversaries, but also a host of former federal employees who were recently laid off by Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The fired workers will be there at the invitation of Democrats in both chambers — a strategy that represents just the latest piece of a broader campaign to highlight the real-world effects that Trump’s early policy moves are having on Americans who live far outside the Beltway.

Oh the horror, the humanity, the hollowness. How many Americans lost their jobs when Democrats shut down entire states during the pandemic? Three-quarter of a million Americans lost their jobs last year in the Biden economy. Only D.C. Dems could imagine fired federal workers becoming a crusade.

Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism

Democratic lawmakers are discussing a litany of options to protest at President Trump’s speech to Congress on Tuesday, including through outright disruption, a half dozen House Democrats told Axios.

Why it matters: Some of these tactics go beyond their leaders’ recommendation that members bring guests hurt by Trump and DOGE. This sets up a potential clash between party traditionalists and its more combative anti-Trump wing.

“The part that we all agree on is that this is not business as usual and we would like to find a way — productively — to express our outrage,” one House Democrat told Axios. There is widespread disagreement among Democrats, both inside and outside of Congress, over what would be the most appropriate and effective form of demonstration. What we’re hearing: Some members have told colleagues they may walk out of the chamber when Trump says specific lines they find objectionable, lawmakers told Axios.

Criticism of transgender kids was brought up as a line in the sand that could trigger members to storm out, according to a House Democrat. A wide array of props — including noisemakers — has also been floated:

Signs with anti-Trump or anti-DOGE messages — just as Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) held up a sign during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech last year that said “war criminal.” Eggs or empty egg cartons to highlight how inflation is driving up the price of eggs. Pocket constitutions to make the case that Trump has been violating the Constitution by shutting down congressionally authorized agencies. Hand clappers, red cards and various other props have also been discussed, multiple sources said. The intrigue: In closed-door meetings and on the House floor Monday night, lawmakers were specifically discouraged from using props, two House Democrats told Axios.

These tactics are also a source of considerable internal debate among House Democratic rank-and-file — in large part based on what they’ve heard back in their districts. “There are definitely a lot of constituents that really want Democrats to disrupt and there are … constituents who feel like that just plays into his hands,” one House Democrat told Axios. Zoom out: Disruptions during joint session speeches used to provoke outrage, but have become increasingly common in recent years.

Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-S.C.) outburst at former President Obama — ”you lie,” he shouted — was a shocking event in 2009. Former President Biden was persistently heckled by Republicans during multiple State of the Union addresses. Then there was the aforementioned disruption of Netanyahu’s speech by Tlaib. Zoom in: Some groups of Democrats plan to mount more traditional protests through the use of color coordination in their wardrobe choices.

Pink: The Democratic Women’s Caucus wants all their members to wear pink in a unified display of defiance to a president many of them despise. Black: Female members of the Congressional Black Caucus have separately discussed donning black to more accurately capture the party’s somber mood. Blue and yellow: Ukraine Caucus co-chair Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) will distribute ties and scarves with the colors of Ukraine’s flag to signal support for President Volodymyr Zelensky. Others plan to sit stone-faced and refuse to clap during the entire speech, another time-honored tactic for opposition party members to silently protest the president.

What they’re saying: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) wrote in a letter to House Democrats that he and other leaders plan to attend the speech to “make clear to the nation that there is a strong opposition party ready, willing and able to serve as a check and balance.”

Jeffries also said leadership understands if some members skip the speech — as several have said they plan to do — but urged a “strong, determined and dignified Democratic presence in the chamber.” House Democratic caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told Axios leadership is telling members to “keep the focus on the health and safety and the economic wellbeing of our constituents.” The bottom line: “Whether we are wearing pink, or black, or yellow and blue, we are all conveying our displeasure with this administration,” said. Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.).

“What’s more important is our work together and the pressure for three Republicans to do the right thing for everyone,” she said.

People sometimes tell me that their spouses, family members or friends accuse them of being too sensitive. I equate that with somebody telling you, “I don’t like what you’re feeling.” That can certainly be annoying, since it isn’t a statement most accusers are prepared to defend. So instead we fall back on the arbitrary notion that the person’s just “too sensitive.”

Sensitivity refers to feelings. A feeling or an emotion is a particularly intense expression of an idea or a thought. We tend to think of feelings and thoughts as being different from one another, but in fact they’re two versions of the same mental process, i.e., what a person thinks, perceives or believes in a particular moment. So, telling someone they’re “too sensitive” suggests that their thoughts are “too intense” or that they’re “thinking too much.”

This can be particularly damaging to kids. Parents will sometimes dismiss their child’s thinking when it seems illogical. But to the child, it’s very real. They’re missing the fact that the child needs to understand her error and not be dismissed for it. If they reject a child’s emotions and thoughts, she will eventually conclude that her thoughts can’t be trusted or that they don’t matter. No wonder so many kids have problems with self-esteem.

It’s not wise or fair to tell someone important to you that they’re thinking too intensely, when in fact the real issue might be what you think of their ideas. For example, say that someone important to you has her feelings hurt, and she expresses this to you. You have one of two choices. You can say, “I don’t care what you think” and walk away, or you can listen and follow-up with a response. Listening and understanding doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing; it simply means paying attention. Once you understand her point of view, then you can examine it logically and form your own decision whether or not to agree.

It’s important to keep in mind that feelings are not always accurate or factual. People do overreact and jump to conclusions, and emotions often have little basis in objective reality. Interestingly, after the initial emotions have subsided, the person will often realize this.

It’s equally important not to pretend to accept someone’s feelings. An example might include a relationship where one partner is more emotional than the other. A pattern can develop where the less emotional partner appeases the more emotional one by pretending to agree with every expression of emotion. This will sometimes send the more emotional one to a therapist, saying, “I know I go overboard sometimes. But when he claims he agrees with me, and I know full well he doesn’t, that must mean that he doesn’t care enough to consider what I’m saying — even when I’m wrong!” Is this any way to treat somebody you claim to love?

If you don’t care to listen to what someone thinks, just tell them. It may seem contradictory, but if you really don’t care enough to listen, it’s the most honest way out. (By the way, be ready to “own” whatever reaction you might get.)

There are alternatives to summarily writing off a person’s expression of their feelings. You can say, “I don’t follow what you mean.” Or, “It sounds like you’re saying two different things. Tell me if I got it wrong.” Or even, “I didn’t mean to hurt you, but I can see how that would hurt.”

The power of communication is limitless. We all need to know that our feelings and thoughts matter, especially to somebody we care about. Comments like “You’re too sensitive” do nothing more than dismiss communication. And when you do that, you’re dismissing the one you love.

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on X at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, @DrHurd on TruthSocial. Dr. Hurd is also now a Newsmax Insider!

President Donald Trump vowed to “tell it like it is” during his “big” appearance before a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night.

It will be Trump’s first joint congressional address of his second presidency.

“TOMORROW NIGHT WILL BE BIG. I WILL TELL IT LIKE IT IS!” Trump posted Monday morning on Truth Social.

Trump will give his speech four days after Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was told to the leave the White House after a fiery exchange with the president and Vice President J.D. Vance.

Trump and Vance called Zelenskyy disrespectful during their White House meeting Friday over bringing an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. Before the fallout, the Ukrainian president had been expected to sign a minerals deal with the U.S.

Minutes before his “big” post on Truth Social, Trump wrote: “The only President who gave none of Ukraine’s land to Putin’s Russia is President Donald J. Trump. Remember that when the weak and ineffective Democrat’s criticize, and the Fake News gladly puts out anything they say!”

Reports on Monday said Trump was expected to meet with top aides to discuss suspending or canceling U.S. military aid to Ukraine.

With the Republican-led House and Senate trying to hammer out budget legislation that supports his agenda, Trump likely will discuss extending his 2016 tax cuts, securing the U.S.-Mexico border, and stopping the flow of fentanyl during his speech to Congress.

During Trump’s first month in office, illegal border crossings dropped to their lowest levels in more than two decades, according to government statistics, CBS News reported.

With his Department of Government Efficiency, headed by Elon Musk, creating news due to staff cuts and findings of massive partisan and wasteful spending, Trump assuredly will address DOGE.

The president also figures to tout his tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada, and an additional tariff on China. Trump has said the tariffs will go into effect Tuesday.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Tuesday night, President Donald Trump is delivering an unofficial “State of the Union” address to the United States Congress and to the American people. It will be his first major speech since the start of his second presidential term.  

In his last “State of the Union” speech, on February 4, 2020, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was so enraged that she tore up his written remarks. This act of defiance was highly inappropriate and unprecedented. Republican House Speakers never acted in such a manner.

Pelosi’s temper tantrum typifies how Democrats respond to President Trump. Instead of working with Trump to benefit all Americans, they engage in disgraceful outbursts of anger. Thus, Democrats have impeached Trump twice, and many party leaders have boycotted his speeches and both of his inaugurations.

On Tuesday night, several prominent Democrats will, once again, boycott Trump’s speech. This response highlights the severe problems besetting the Democratic Party. Democrats seem to be incapable of crafting a winning message to appeal to the American people and to counter the Trump agenda.

While Democrats offer theatrical opposition, Trump has launched the greatest start to a presidential term in our nation’s history. In fact, over the past six weeks, the Trump administration has saved our union by acting with lightning speed to reshape the federal government.

In the last six weeks, President Trump has issued 79 executive orders covering a range of vital issues. For example, on Saturday, President Trump signed an executive order making English the official language of the United States, following the lead of more than 30 states.

The order states, “A nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society, and the United States is strengthened by a citizenry that can freely exchange ideas in one shared language.” Of course, this is common sense, but it has never been done until President Trump acted. With the stroke of Trump’s pen, the United States joined 180 other nations around the world with an official language.

This decision will not harm those Americans who have legally immigrated to our country. In contrast, it will help them succeed in our country, as outlined in the President’s executive order, “Establishing English as the official language will not only streamline communication but also reinforce shared national values and create a more cohesive and efficient society.”

Although Democrats will condemn the President’s decision about language, much of their fury has been directed at his efforts to empower the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by “special government employee” Elon Musk.

The impact of DOGE has been monumental. Due to the efforts of DOGE, massive government waste, fraud and abuse have been uncovered. Federal employees have been required to report on their activities for the previous week and return to the office. The second round of “pulse check” emails have been sent, requiring a response from federal employees.

This type of accountability is sorely needed and has been missing from the federal government. Americans will now learn how many federal employees are non-existent or non-performing.

Of course, Democrats are furious with these efforts. U.S. Congressman Maxwell Frost (D-FL) said that “Things are falling apart.” Really, Congressman? What is falling apart are the lies and the corrupt agendas of many bloated government bureaucracies.

By creating DOGE, President Trump is helping to preserve the survival of the United States. Without serious action, the country is on the road to financial ruin. Currently, the national debt is $36.5 trillion, an outrageous amount which is not sustainable. Fortunately, due to bold action by DOGE, $155 billion in unnecessary spending has already been trimmed in just six weeks.

If this efficiency is continued for the remainder of the year, DOGE will save $1.34 trillion in wasteful spending, giving the Trump administration an opportunity to balance the federal budget for the first time since 2001.

Another important focus of the second Trump administration has been to establish border security. President Trump inherited a border that had been broken by the reckless policies of the former administration.

Incredibly, in only six weeks, President Trump has secured the southern border. Last month, there were just 8,326 illegal aliens apprehended at the Mexican border. According to Michael Banks, Chief of U.S. Border Patrol, February was “the lowest month in recorded history.”

This is beyond astounding for last month’s total is a 94% decrease from the 140,641 illegal border encounters that were recorded in February of 2024 and a 82% decrease “from December, President Joe Biden’s last full month in office.”

The reasons for this amazing success are varied and include President Trump’s strong messaging to illegal aliens, the addition of military personnel to bolster border security, the renewed construction of the border wall, the closing of migrant shelters in border states, the transfer of illegal aliens to facilities at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp in Cuba and the enhanced raids launched by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) throughout the country.

In total, these aggressive measures have solved a problem that plagued our country throughout the Biden administration, which created one disaster after another.

Another  major failing of the Biden administration was in foreign relations. President Biden inherited a peaceful world, but he helped create the conditions for war in both Gaza and Ukraine. Fortunately, President Trump is determined to bring a peaceful end to both wars.

Regarding the war in Ukraine, only President Trump has the capability to negotiate with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. On Friday, Trump cancelled a press conference and a scheduled lunch and escorted Zelensky from the White House after it was clear the Ukrainian leader was not ready for peace.

Eventually, Zelensky will reconsider after he realizes that President Trump is an uncommon leader, who is offering a lifeline for his country. Trump not only wants to save America, but he also wants to save the world from the catastrophe of World War III.

Jeff Crouere

Zelensky should get his money from the Soros family. The U.S. should cut him off. Our national security doesn’t depend on Ukraine.

Under the Biden regime, government was a business. One of its chief customers was the little worthless profiteer from Ukraine. Looks like his wife may have to curtail her shopping budget.

In case you missed the Zelensky/Trump/Vance exchange, here it is. Better than advertised, with J.D. Vance every bit as spectacular as Trump. Leftists and RINOs are foaming at the mouth — always a good thing for truth, liberty and justice.

Michael J Hurd

DEI was the biggest con of the century, embedding bureaucratic hustlers in academia while fueling ideological extremism—now, as it collapses, new labels emerge to mask its failure.

This article is adapted from the author’s new book, “DEI Exposed: How the Biggest Con of the Century Almost Toppled Higher Education” (Armin Lear Press.)

The DEI Con has enriched thousands of hustlers nationwide. It has embedded many hundreds of apparatchiks and supernumeraries in college bureaucracies, and it will require herculean efforts to root them all out. And it continues to attack the average person for the most dubious of ideologically motivated reasons in “training” sessions, both on the campuses and in corporate America.

I first heard the actual acronym DEI expressed while I was in a 7-11 on the campus during the early days of the COVID pandemic, and it was two masked graduate students discussing the wonderful employment possibilities of this new initiative, which sounded like someone trying to monetize kumbaya. Already steeped in leftist ideology and its tactic of renaming and relabeling its hooey for new generations of suckers, I was only vaguely aware that this was just the latest brand for the newest social justice foray in higher education.

“Diversity” had already been around for many years, its hustler scratching at the university door. Not actual diversity, mind you, but the skin-deep diversity of noxious racialism tarted-up with fake Enlightenment discourse. This concept of “diversity, equity, inclusion” quickly metastasized until it was everywhere, and this was no accident. It was a bureaucratic initiative designed to anchor a new raft of social justice programs as an inescapable presence on the campus.

It was no accident that it was violence and the threat of violence that opened the door for this effervescence of DEI. It sounded absurd. I knew it was absurd; I knew it was a con. Most people likely knew it was a con but then most people on the campuses also knew to keep their mouths shut in a time of hair-trigger tempers and performative chaos unleashed by well-funded activist groups. No college administration wanted the summer violence of 2020 overflowing onto the campuses. And so they opened the university to barbarian ideas rather than the barbarians themselves.

This was the madness of crowds brought en masse onto the campuses, and it was wildly successful. It achieved this success with a superb combination of psychological factors—relentless hustling, a primitive ideology suffused with mysticism and “indigenous knowledges,” and the barely concealed violent urges of quasi-communist and terroristic revolutionaries. All of this shielded from criticism and even the mildest of questioning.

You knew something was terribly wrong with it.

Anyone on a college campus subjected to the mediocrity of a DEI hustler knew there was something wrong with it.

It was not noble. It was not idealistic. It was not the many wonderful things its proponents said. It was one thing to the public, and it was another altogether when enacted on the campuses. It was weird and alien and hateful at its core, but the public is rarely exposed to any of this. It was the classic Potemkin village offering, with a façade masking a brute, racialist substance.

In other words, it was a con. In fact, it was the biggest Con Story of the 21st century, with America’s universities the biggest suckers imaginable. And the crowning achievement of Western civilization—the modern university—tottered under the assault of mediocrity, racialism, and pseudoscience.

I suppose that folks duped by the big cons will eventually retreat in their embarrassment at having been fooled by one of the shadiest Con Stories ever deployed. Even now, DEI is in retreat. As it plays out in its final act, I assure you that it will dissipate in a flurry of new acronyms and new labels designed to hide its failure.

Its proponents will roll out new slogans to replace the vapid “Diversity is our strength.” Already, “inclusive excellence” is supplanting DEI as this trusty acronym becomes freighted with failure. The Con Story will morph and adapt. Reluctantly. Buzzwords will change, new slogans will be coined, but the underlying ideology will remain the same as it always has. It must serve yeoman’s duty for the Big Con.

Elaborate and elegant Con Stories have played major political roles for centuries, baiting and hooking marks with promises of utopia. The most convincing Con Story of them all is that of Karl Marx, whose fabulous pseudoscience has duped millions of the credulous to support murderous regimes in the name of “social justice.” It still does.

Con Stories are essential to convincing gullible people to act in ways that simply make no sense to a normal person who is tethered to reality. We saw an example of the Con Story’s power in December of 2024.

In the early morning hours, a Con Story duped a privileged 26-year-old by the name of Luigi Mangione to stalk and back-shoot a man he’d never met—a man with wife and two children who guaranteed the health care of hundreds of thousands of Americans through his company. Mangione murdered on the streets of New York for the same reason that extremist ideologues and world-changers always kill. His ideology told him the target was a villain, and he acted.

Let’s be clear. People who think this way are dangerous. They are not temperate, they do not compromise (except for the moment’s expediency), and they are certainly not swayed by the better “argument.” These are the kinds of people who hide inside a crowd, usually masked. Many of them are disturbed mentally.

It’s easy to identify the people who are moving in the Mangione direction, inspired by corrupt ideas and urged to do something rather than sit idle. This is a social pathology, and examples of it are too numerous for any polity to be comfortable.

This is the core of successful social movements and social hustles—to contrive a winning narrative out of confusing facts and isolated incidents to portray a fictional pattern, a nationwide epidemic of, well, something that can be used to make a buck. When the social movement is also a social hustle, the combination is too powerful to resist for con-artists and their suckers.

If you believe that there is no link between the kind of social fantasy that motivates a Luigi Mangione to backshoot a man he doesn’t know on a New York street and the kind of DEI fantasy that dictates a racialist split on the college campus that slots persons into good and evil, then try this test yourself. I give you a guarantee that persons who cheer the killer Luigi Mangione for his assassination of Brian Thompson also fully support DEI’s personnel, programs, policies, and enforcement mechanisms on the college campuses. Go ahead, ask a person who cheers the assassin if he also supports DEI.

You already know the answer, don’t you?

It’s because this type of person is animated by a vision of the world crafted by some dead scribbler and is a prisoner of ideology, forfeiting the reliable information provided by his own senses and experience.

It’s what happens when a sucker falls hard for a Con Story.

Stanley Rigley

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s Oval Office appearance was, without question, the biggest public self-immolation by a country’s leader in world history.

First, Zelensky arrives at the White House dressed like a tiny Ninja. Then, in front of the American media in the Oval Office with President Trump and Vice President Vance sitting right there, he challenges Vance to explain how diplomacy would be possible today when when American diplomacy failed under former President Obama in 2014.

What kind of diplomacy, JD, are you speaking about?” the Tiny Ninja sarcastically asked like a wiseass. “What do you mean?”

My mouth literally swung open. First off, when you are in a public forum, you do not address the Vice President by his first name, especially after you show up without a tie. Secondly, you don’t disrespect the President and Vice President with your stupid talking points. That’s true whether you are in public or private.

Here’s a guy who is only able to hang on to his country because of ongoing American generosity to the tune of hundreds of billions in cash and weaponry, and there he is talking down to our Vice President and asking him hostile questions while insulting American diplomacy as feckless.

To his great credit, Vance roared back with… “I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country.” And then Vance laid the pipsqueak out:

Mr. President, with respect I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the President for trying to bring an end to this conflict.

Incredibly, Zelensky only got worse from there.

Two thoughts went through my head. The first was Jim Acosta, and the second was dictator.

I’ll address dictator first… There is no way in hell Zelensky would’ve thrown his entire country under the bus like that if he had not outlawed Ukraine’s 11 or so rival political parties and canceled elections by declaring martial law. Only a Fidel Castro or Leonid Brezhnev can behave so arrogantly when so much is on the line.

Imagine you are a Ukrainian watching the leader of your country act like an entitled trust fund baby, knowing that without American help, Putin will overrun your country. You can’t screw your own people like that unless you are dictator-for-life.

The Jim Acosta thought came from how much Zelensky’s deliberately rude, unprofessional, and belligerent behavior reminded me of all those fake journalists who treated Trump the exact same way during his first term in the hopes it would land them a cable news anchoring gig.

Basically, Zelensky shit all over the very people who are keeping him and his country alive in order to what exactly…? Receive applause from the regime media?

Barack Obama and Joe Biden treated Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu like he was some sort of virus, but never once did you see Netanyahu appear to be anything but grateful and respectful.

I am on record backing Ukraine and Zelensky. Nothing would’ve made me happier than to see Putin humiliated back to his borders. But enough is enough. Ukraine cannot win the war. We can’t afford to fund this war any longer. People on both sides are dying with no end in sight. Ukraine war supporters have still not answered my questions from last week, and now I have one more: Why should we support an unstable, unprofessional, reckless, narcissistic, ungrateful maniac who has no intention of ending the war? He obviously wants a forever war or to lose his country entirely.

He surely doesn’t want peace.

Why all the violence for “transgender” rights? The men who dress like women and want to be called the gender they prefer to be called on the whim of the moment surely are a violent bunch.

Latest example: Iowa yesterday, where a bill excluding gender identity from civil rights laws was under consideration. I don’t remember all this brute force and threats of violence in the years of pushing for gay marriage, deregulation of AIDS treatments, equal rights for women, and the like. It’s a fair question: why are “transgenders” so violent? Or at least the people representing them?

It seems to me the “ladies” doth protest too much. If you’re truly confident in your position, you don’t even feel tempted to inflict physical pain on those who dissent. To be fair, how could these activists use rational persuasion on anyone? You can’t support the concept of “transgender” without willfully suspending your knowledge both of common sense and scientific evidence, such as DNA. I suppose violence, threats and intimidation are all they’ve got.

Michael J. Hurd