By Jeremy Egerer

Because of slavery and Jim Crow and too many movies like The Help, there was a point where I genuinely cared about the plight of black Americans in general.

But these days I’m a little picky.  When people say “Black Lives Matter,” I like to ask, which ones?  Because Black Lives Matter already pretended “all of them,” and if we’re being honest, it felt a lot like No Lives Matter.

How can you say lives matter, for instance, when you don’t care how they live?  And how can you say “people are important” without asking them to take themselves seriously?  What we found was that BLM wanted something more than just life: They demanded a total suspension of basic justice.  They wanted to suspend the very laws of cause and effect and physics.  If there was a crazy demand, they wanted you to just give in.  If a criminal was attacking women, they wanted you to just back off.  Evidence?  No time for that, I’m afraid.  If you had a counter-argument, they wanted you to shut up.  If you worked harder and did a better job at your job, they just wanted you to lose the promotion.  And if you won, they wanted you to hand over the extra money.

No voice — no rights — no self-esteem?  Call me crazy, but it sounds as though what Black Lives Matter really needed was slaves.

There were shirts printed all over the country that said “QUIET, A BLACK WOMAN IS SPEAKING,” and they meant it.  They said white history is too white, so they wanted a history that’s all black.  They said they didn’t want to see your models on TV or billboards or magazines — they wanted their own models on everything instead.  Your movies?  Last place at the Emmys.  Your music?  Last place at the Grammys.  Was their stuff any good?  Didn’t matter, so long as they won anyway.

And let’s not mistake the obvious.  They weren’t even fighting to be rid of “white supremacy.”  They didn’t give a damn about any other races’ movies or music or safety.  This was an unabashed fight for black supremacy.  And the people who paid most, in the end, were black people.

This was because, ironically, the movement didn’t really care about all black people.  If you were a robber, or a rapist, or any black scoundrel, really — they were there to defend your life.  Not so much if you were a black baby.  Not so much if you were a black policeman.  Not so much if you were a black business-owner, or a soldier, or a good man just minding his business.

If you were killed by a black cop, they’d call it “white supremacy.”  If you were killed by a black thug, they’d ignore you.  If you burned down a black business, they’d pay for your bail.  If your once-successful business burned down, nobody would be coming to save you.  There was no such thing, during this period, as an innocent or upstanding black life that mattered.  During this period of anarchy and bedlam, the only person who mattered was the person who shouldn’t.

What Black Lives Matter missed is that the only kind of racial supremacy that works — and I don’t mean “is morally right,” but “the kind that actually turns into a livable society,” like modern-day Japan, or Apartheid South Africa, or even the Nation of Islam — is one where, even if you loathe everyone else, you at least have respect for yourselves.  And that was the one thing Black Lives Matter lacked.  That and an average I.Q. above 75.

Thus, they didn’t want skill.  They wanted degrees and diplomas.  They didn’t want to build successful businesses.  They wanted prestigious seats at the board, and money.  They didn’t want good neighborhoods.  They wanted “affordable housing.”  Worst of all, they didn’t want liberty.  They wanted license.  That’s because you don’t have to earn or build the latter of any of these.  You just have to fight for them.  You just have to steal them.

Every single thing they aimed for was the dumber, cheaper, impossible version of some tangible good.  Thus, they paid in blood and tears and totally forgot about sweat.  They thought you could win without being a winner, and that the big struggle in life is against “the enemy” — that’s people with standards, in case you missed it! — instead of against the worse parts of yourself.  In other words, that the hard won, time-consuming, sleepless-night climb from infancy into mastery could be taken from people who earned it and handed to people who didn’t.  And even dumber than this, the idea that robbers can keep it.

They were wrong.  Boy, were they wrong.

They were so wrong that the first thing that happened when Black Lives Matter “succeeded” was black lives ending.  A lot of them.  Everywhere black people were in charge most, in fact.

Chicago blew up.  Memphis blew up.  New York City blew up, and Tulsa, and the Bay Area.  Everywhere Black Lives Matter succeeded, everything else failed.  The violent crime rate for a short while was a nightmare.  Their own businesses, the engine to climb out of the ghetto, were burned down.  They defended so many shoplifters that Walmart moved out of some cities and now Democrats are complaining about “food deserts.”  The Republicans won the next election in a landslide, and the police are back in popular demand.

The end result is that black lives aren’t safe — overwhelmingly due to other black people.  They also aren’t freer.  They’re also poorer.  And I think the people in Black Lives Matter deserve it.

I only wish they hadn’t dragged so many innocent people — of all colors — down with them.

Jeremy Egerer is the author of Prejudices — a collection of questionable essays on Substack.

Oct 14, 2025

The Democratic Party is collapsing before our eyes. You can see it in the polls. You can see it in their internal panic. You can see it in the way their message shifts from week to week as they desperately grope for something—anything—that resonates with the American people.

Now they’re shutting down the government because they want to fund healthcare for illegal aliens.

Why you ask?

For two reasons: one, because they need to continue to create a new demographic for political power by keeping the illegals here on our social welfare programs to shore up Democrat Party power. Second, they’re doing it because their far left base demands it and if party leadership were to have even hesitated on it, they knew primaries in 2026 were coming (and still might be).

But let’s be clear on the overall dynamics: this isn’t just about a political party losing ground. It’s about the machinery that has sustained that party for decades—the bureaucratic class, the media cartels, the NGO ecosystem, the “deep state” that pretends to be apolitical while carrying water for one side. They’re collapsing, too.

And they all know it.

For years, Democrats told themselves they were the “natural majority party.” They believed demographics, academia, the press, and Silicon Valley would guarantee their dominance for a generation. But they forgot something critical: once you stop delivering results for ordinary Americans—once your only purpose is power to manage decline—the people turn on you. And that’s what’s happening now.

Look at the numbers: Democratic voter registration is shrinking: there’s now a 4.5 million shift in registrations to Republicans advantage since 2020, with seismic shifts taking place in battleground states; in 2016, Democrats held over a 600,000 voter registration advantage in North Carolina. Today, just over 7,000.

Democrats’ approval ratings have cratered. Their leaders—Schumer, Jeffries, Newsom, Whitmer—look tired, brittle, and completely out of touch. Even their own activists are restless, with younger Marxist progressives openly mocking the geriatric leadership class. The base senses weakness, and the ruling class knows it.

So what’s left? Fear and force.

When Democrats can’t win arguments, they turn to their deep state allies: never forget that the Democrat Party and the Administrative State are allies. And the State acts as a backstop for Democrats when they lose elections: bureaucrats slow-walk Republican reforms. Intelligence agencies leak and smear. Federal prosecutors chase enemies while ignoring allies. It’s the same playbook they’ve used for decades, only now it’s obvious to everyone. The weaponization of government is not a conspiracy theory—it’s the last gasp of a massive political machine that can no longer survive on persuasion.

This is the moment of opportunity—and danger. Because Leviathan doesn’t die quietly. It thrashes. It lashes out. It uses every tool left to preserve itself. Expect more lawfare, more indictments, more manufactured crises. Expect bureaucrats to sabotage legislation, courts to invent obstacles, the media to howl about “democracy dying.” This is what collapse looks like: confusion, not graceful surrender, but chaos and desperation.

The lesson for Republicans and for the New Right is simple: do not mistake Leviathan’s weakness for harmlessness. A cornered beast is dangerous. Victory requires not just winning elections, but dismantling the networks of power that prop up the Democratic Party long after its political mandate has expired.

The Democrats are crumbling. Their deep state enablers are exposed. The question is whether Republicans will do what must be done: hold power long enough, and wield it effectively, to finish the job. This isn’t about firing 4,000 bureaucrats. This is about firing 400,000 of them and razing buildings to the ground.

Leviathan will not give up power willingly. It never has. It never will. This will only happen by force of will and the ruthless use of political power by Republicans.

American Leviathan

Which economic system is best for America?”

The options: capitalism or socialism.

87% of respondents voted for capitalism.

13% voted for socialism.

Stunning that 13% are that ignorant/corrupt. One has to ask what demographic represents 13% of the population, as well. Regardless, that’s 13% too many people allowed to vote, reproduce, breathe, etc.

One of the most blasphemous lines in Dilexi Te comes under the chapter heading titled, “Accompanying migrants.” It reads: “Mary and Joseph flee with the child Jesus to Egypt. Christ himself, who ‘came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him’ (Jn 1:11), lived among us as a stranger. For this reason, the Church has always recognized in migrants a living presence of the Lord…”

The author then misappropriates the Holy Family to argue for open-borders. Clearly, the Bible and the Catholic Church have always opposed chaos on national borders, as the true God is a God of order. But manipulating the Holy Family’s desperate flight to Egypt is also a trick of the leftists so predictable that I wrote against it even months before Dilexi Te was released.

In US Bishops and Their Moneymaking Borders, I wrote: “Liberal ‘Catholics’ might even describe Jesus and Mary and Joseph as ‘refugees,’ purposely ignoring the fact the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt crossed the Roman Empire legally. They also ignore the fact St. Joseph was obedient enough to the State in registering with the census as seen in Luke ch. 2.”

Another misleading line in Dilexi Te is: “For Augustine, the poor are not just people to be helped, but the sacramental presence of the Lord.” Fr. Kevin Cusick exposed this goofy idea by writing: “Saint Augustine was neither a modernist, nor a heretic. He sought clarity, for the sake of truth, not confusion to plant a false gospel. The poor are sinners as are we all, and all in need of sacraments, without the grace of which none can be saved.”

Frank Walker then added on his Rumble channel: “Think about how arrogant this is to say ‘The poor, the poor, the poor!’ and that’s what they do to all sorts of victim groups… Everyone is victimizing them constantly… But to call them ‘God’ is such a terrible thing to do.”

Frank is correct. Marxists always pretend to deify the poor without evangelization or sacraments. Leftists always use this fake-deification to treat the poor as slaves.  Obviously, this causes chaos and keeps them out of the Catholic Church, for they are seen as “projects” instead of immortal souls who need Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church to get to heaven.  And trust me as someone who has served on five continents:  The poor know when they are being treated as projects instead of people.

Msgr. George F. Dillon was an Irish priest living in England in the second half of the 19th century and he wrote extensively about freemasonry infiltrating Europe in his celebrated book, The War of the Antichrist with the Church and Christian Civilization. It is also called “Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked” and I highly suggest reading either of those. Of course, Msgr. Dillon never could have imagined such evil possessing the Vatican back in the 19th century. But he did already see in the 19th how freemasons were weaponizing the poor for their own advance.

Msgr. Dillon wrote in War of the Antichrist with the Church about how Italian freemasons viewed the poor: “In Italy, for instance, this class of Freemasons have had supreme power in their hands for over a quarter of a century. They obtained it by professing the strongest sympathy for the down-trodden millions whom they called ‘slaves.’ They stated that these slaves—the bulk of the Italian people in the country and in the cities—were no better than tax-paying machines, the dupes and drudges of their political tyrants. Victor Emmanuel, when he wanted, as he said, ’to liberate them from political tyrants’ declared that a cry came to him from the ‘enslaved Italy,’ composed of these down-trodden, unregenerated millions.”

What he describes Victor doing there is the narcissist DARVO technique.  That is: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.  Similarly, leftists (including liberation theologians like the author of Dilexi Te) deny trying to use the poor for violence but then attack anyone who stands against open-borders. This reverses the victim and the offender. DARVO is an especially effective tactic if Marxists can frame themselves as the real victims—simply there—trying to help the poor fight against an open-market.

One of the most blasphemous lines in Dilexi Te comes under the chapter heading titled, “Accompanying migrants.” It reads: “Mary and Joseph flee with the child Jesus to Egypt. Christ himself, who ‘came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him’ (Jn 1:11), lived among us as a stranger. For this reason, the Church has always recognized in migrants a living presence of the Lord…”

The author then misappropriates the Holy Family to argue for open-borders. Clearly, the Bible and the Catholic Church have always opposed chaos on national borders, as the true God is a God of order. But manipulating the Holy Family’s desperate flight to Egypt is also a trick of the leftists so predictable that I wrote against it even months before Dilexi Te was released.

In US Bishops and Their Moneymaking Borders, I wrote: “Liberal ‘Catholics’ might even describe Jesus and Mary and Joseph as ‘refugees,’ purposely ignoring the fact the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt crossed the Roman Empire legally. They also ignore the fact St. Joseph was obedient enough to the State in registering with the census as seen in Luke ch. 2.”

Another misleading line in Dilexi Te is: “For Augustine, the poor are not just people to be helped, but the sacramental presence of the Lord.” Fr. Kevin Cusick exposed this goofy idea by writing: “Saint Augustine was neither a modernist, nor a heretic. He sought clarity, for the sake of truth, not confusion to plant a false gospel. The poor are sinners as are we all, and all in need of sacraments, without the grace of which none can be saved.”

Frank Walker then added on his Rumble channel: “Think about how arrogant this is to say ‘The poor, the poor, the poor!’ and that’s what they do to all sorts of victim groups… Everyone is victimizing them constantly… But to call them ‘God’ is such a terrible thing to do.”

Frank is correct. Marxists always pretend to deify the poor without evangelization or sacraments. Leftists always use this fake-deification to treat the poor as slaves.  Obviously, this causes chaos and keeps them out of the Catholic Church, for they are seen as “projects” instead of immortal souls who need Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church to get to heaven.  And trust me as someone who has served on five continents:  The poor know when they are being treated as projects instead of people.

Msgr. George F. Dillon was an Irish priest living in England in the second half of the 19th century and he wrote extensively about freemasonry infiltrating Europe in his celebrated book, The War of the Antichrist with the Church and Christian Civilization. It is also called “Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked” and I highly suggest reading either of those. Of course, Msgr. Dillon never could have imagined such evil possessing the Vatican back in the 19th century. But he did already see in the 19th how freemasons were weaponizing the poor for their own advance.

Msgr. Dillon wrote in War of the Antichrist with the Church about how Italian freemasons viewed the poor: “In Italy, for instance, this class of Freemasons have had supreme power in their hands for over a quarter of a century. They obtained it by professing the strongest sympathy for the down-trodden millions whom they called ‘slaves.’ They stated that these slaves—the bulk of the Italian people in the country and in the cities—were no better than tax-paying machines, the dupes and drudges of their political tyrants. Victor Emmanuel, when he wanted, as he said, ’to liberate them from political tyrants’ declared that a cry came to him from the ‘enslaved Italy,’ composed of these down-trodden, unregenerated millions.”

What he describes Victor doing there is the narcissist DARVO technique.  That is: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.  Similarly, leftists (including liberation theologians like the author of Dilexi Te) deny trying to use the poor for violence but then attack anyone who stands against open-borders. This reverses the victim and the offender. DARVO is an especially effective tactic if Marxists can frame themselves as the real victims—simply there—trying to help the poor fight against an open-market.

Father David Nix

“I hope the whole nation understands how incredibly proud they should be of their President,” said Marco Rubio, lU.S. Secretary of State.

The whole nation? Sadly, somewhere between one-third and half the nation loathes America, detest freedom and probably hate themselves. In another generation, those numbers might be worse. The majority who voted for President Trump are indeed proud of him and of the general direction America is trying to head. But evil and irrationality are on the march as never before, as Charlie Kirk’s murder most recently demonstrated. Believe me: more is coming.

I am saying this not to be negative, but in the interest of grasping, naming and facing reality. Because in the long run, well beyond President Trump’s amazingly courageous and heroic efforts, facing the truth is the only way good can triumph over evil.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Psalm 62:1 (King James Version) Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation.

It is impossible to overstate the size of Trump’s accomplishment with the Israel/Gaza peace agreement. One week after the Swedish brat was going to Gaza to stir up unrest and blame Israel for more atrocities, Trump is signing the agreement for peace. This is truly remarkable by a remarkable man who has spent his entire life prepping for this moment. The man who has been vilified more than anyone since Christ while showing why the Founding Fathers wanted successful part time politicians rather than career pols like Biden, Pelosi, and Clinton. The only people in the world who were not surprised was MAGA.

Last week Antifa Brown Shirts were chanting From the River to the Sea and today there is peace throughout the Mediterranean and the only war is in Portland. If only the entire country was filled with MAGA men there would be peace here too. Perhaps MAGA can start chanting from Sea to Sea America will be Free?

The Trump Peace Agreement is an example of what happens when you have businesspeople in charge rather than bureaucrats. Never mind the Drag Show you had with Slow Joe, every administration has been filled with career hacks who could not make a decision without at least five push polls telling them what to think. Trump has highly successful people who know how to negotiate and make decisions without putting a finger in the air.

This is far more efficient than centralized gummits where every detail has to go up the chain and back down wasting valuable time. These guys simply found what the sticking points were and told them they would get it fixed and did. Trump gave them the goal and parameters of what success looked like putting everyone on the same page and he was the closer when the details were negotiated.

Communists work just the opposite. All of Biden’s cabinet were out of the closet and more interested in flaunting their victim status than accomplishing anything. There is no value in accomplishment for Dims since they are only interested in destroying things. Since they could never do anything as risky as ending a war by horrific monsters let alone helping Judah, so they simply supported the Mooselips to destroy Israel and America. This made it a twofer so they could call both countries evil.

Speaking of Portland, has Antifa Kotek congratulated President Trump for making peace in Gaza? Has she axed Trump to see if he can bring it to Oregon, From the River to the Sea? Trump settles eight wars plus the DOJ war on Trump and she cannot settle a two-block war between some wimpy beta males and hundred-pound girls against ICE. They are so pathetic they had to order extra small bike seats for their naked bike ride. Do these old hippies think people want to look at their pale flabby bodies? Did they still have training wheels?

Antifa Kotax is the perfect example of a lifelong politician who accomplished zero in the real world and built on nothing in the corrupt Party. Once she moved out to Oregon from Philly she/it moved up the ladder using victimhood and virtue grandstanding on her homosexuality exploitation. It is the shortest path from white privileged to victimhood giving you an advantage in the Democrat Communist Party. Like Bootiejudge, Bawny Fwank, and most of Biden’s cabinet, it is a resume enhancer but a results eliminator as was seen in the Trashcanistan withdrawal. That day made the Vietnam exit look like a Swiss watch. How many men can you have hanging on the outside of a plane?

President Trump is the among the Big 3 Presidents and has a good argument as the best. Washington, Hamilton, and Lincoln were all outsiders and so is Trump. No President has turned around America politically, economically, and morally as dramatically as Trump. No President has had such a massive change in the world as Trump, in nine months he has completely changed the direction of the world in the same way he has changed America. There is an America movement being fueled by young men worldwide.

He has made America the leader of the world again. The world benefits more than America when she is powerful. If America’s economy is powerful the entire world’s economy benefits. Trump knows this and is an economic genius doing what genius’ do. He is a President like Reagan who understands the most important job of the CIC is to be the head cheerleader. He makes it fun to be an American again rather than ashamed.

Today, Israel and Gaza had some fun with America’s Cheerleader in Chief. This is what happens when you use high achievers rather than no achievers.

Shalom Israel

Monday was a festive day, with the whole world seemingly celebrating the dawn of peace in the Middle East and hailing President Trump for bringing it about. The president himself, while speaking about the release of the hostages in his speech to the Knesset, promised a bright new world unencumbered by past hatred and animosities: “After two harrowing years in darkness and captivity, 20 courageous hostages are returning to the glorious embrace of their families. Twenty-eight more precious loved ones are coming home at last to rest in this sacred soil for all of time. And after so many years of unceasing war and endless danger, today the skies are calm, the guns are silent, the sirens are still, and the sun rises on a Holy Land that is finally at peace.”

Trump proclaimed not just the end of the present war between Israel and Hamas, but of an entire era of war: “This is not only the end of a war. This is the end of an age of terror and death, the beginning of the age of faith and hope and of God.” He said that the cessation of hostilities heralded ” a very exciting time for Israel and for the entire Middle East,” and added that “the forces of chaos, terror and ruin that have plagued the region for decades now stand weakened, isolated, and totally defeated.”

Swept up in the excitement of the occasion, Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana said: “You, President Trump, are a colossus who will be enshrined in the pantheon of history. Thousands of years from now the Jewish people will remember you. We are a nation that remembers.”

It is likely that President Trump will indeed be remembered thousands of years from now, for he is a transformative figure who has reshaped national and international politics. Whether he will be remembered, however, as the man who brought about “the end of an age of terror and death” and “the beginning of the age of faith and hope and of God,” however, is another question altogether.

During his Knesset speech, Trump touted his ability to make deals, and he has certainly demonstrated that ability in bringing about the current ceasefire. But the best dealmaker in world history would not be able to make a deal that would end the Islamic jihad imperative.

Imagine some bizarro alternative where some future president of the United States was pro-murder, pro-theft, and pro-adultery, and desired accordingly to stamp out the Ten Commandments. Even if this rogue president were able to find Jewish and Christian leaders who would sign his agreement banning the Ten Commandments, other Jewish and Christian believers would continue to hold them and act upon them.

This imperative will remain, no matter what Hamas has agreed to with President Trump. The bellicosity coming out of Gaza as they celebrate what they claim is a victory over the last few days is clear enough evidence of that. Even if Hamas ceases to exist as an organized group, another jihad group, or a multiplicity of them, will take its place.

The requirement to wage jihad against unbelievers and bring them under the hegemony of Islamic law, which ensures that Islam will dominate and not be dominated, has just that status among Muslims: it comes from the supreme being. It is neither to be questioned nor negotiated away. Those who grant this point but insist that jihad is primarily, if not solely, the spiritual struggle within the soul of the believer to conform his life to the will of Allah are credulously accepting the apologetic half-truths and distortions that Islamic spokesmen have propagated in the West in order to foster complacency and cast resistance to jihad as “bigotry” and “Islamophobia.”

The reality is that jihad in the Qur’an is clearly martial, with repeated exhortations to kill those who do not believe (2:191; 4:89; 4:91; 9:5; 47:4) and the stipulation that the Muslim warrior must give a fifth of his war booty to the messenger of Allah (8:41). In an interior spiritual struggle, there are no spoils of war.

This is not to say that Trump should not have acted to rescue the hostages, although the price — the freeing of 250 jihad terrorists, many of whom will certainly go back to work — was extremely high. Maybe the relief of their families after two years of heartache, and of the hostages themselves after two years of torment, is worth any price. But amid the euphoria, let’s not get carried away. The jihad is not over. This is no time to deceive ourselves into thinking that it is, and let our guard down accordingly.

Robert Spencer, Front Page Magazine

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As Americans across the country continued to carry on their day-to-day lives without any significant changes, Democrats vowed to keep the federal government shut down until someone notices.

Sources on Capitol Hill said that, though congressional Democrats had grown frustrated by the fact that the country seemed to keep existing and flourishing despite the lack of involvement from the federal government, they remained committed to keeping the shutdown in effect until someone acknowledged it.

“Sooner or later, it’s bound to have some type of effect,” House Minority Leader and government shutdown architect Hakeem Jeffries said. “I know it’s disappointing that everyone seems to just be going about their business and living their lives without us interfering in anything, but eventually somebody will surely notice that the government is shut down. Right? We just need to be patient.”

When reached for comment, one American citizen was surprised to hear that the government was shut down. “Is it? Oh, I had no idea,” said factory worker James Hartford. “I’ve had a great last couple of weeks. Maybe that’s why?”

Democratic leaders were adamant that they would not budge until their shutdown was noticed by someone. “We know the federal government has to have more impact than it seems now,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. “They’ll notice that we’re not doing anything at some point, I think. The day will come when America simply won’t be able to function without… wherever it is we do.”

At publishing time, the vast majority of Americans in all parts of the nation remained blissfully unaware of and unaffected by the government shutdown.

Babylon Bee

Georgetown Law professors William Treanor and Amy Uelmen have crafted a remarkably dishonest defense of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, disguising radical left-wing ideology as Catholic tradition. Their recent essay in America magazine represents not scholarly analysis but pure propaganda, a cynical attempt to baptize secular progressivism with holy water while hoping no one notices the fundamental contradiction.

The audacity of their argument is staggering. These professors claim that opposition to DEI constitutes an attack on religious freedom. In fact, they themselves have already surrendered Georgetown’s Catholic identity to the altar of woke orthodoxy. They invoke papal encyclicals and Jesuit tradition to justify programs that would be utterly foreign to any Catholic thinker before the cultural revolution of the 1960s. This is intellectual dishonesty masquerading as theological sophistication.

Consider the manipulation in their core argument. They quote Pope Francis on including those on the “periphery” to defend bureaucratic systems that sort students and faculty by skin color and sexual orientation. They cite Pope John Paul II’s call for solidarity to justify dividing the human family into oppressor and victim classes. This is not interpretation but perversion. They take sacred texts and twist them to serve an agenda their original authors would have condemned in a heartbeat.

The authors know full well that Catholic social teaching has never endorsed the racial preferences or identity-based hiring that define today’s DEI programs. They know the Church’s concern for the poor and marginalized has always rested on universal human dignity and not group grievance. Yet they present these modern inventions as if they flowed naturally from centuries of Catholic wisdom.

Their treatment of Jesuit history proves equally disingenuous. They invoke the order’s missionary zeal and cultural adaptation to justify contemporary identity politics. They conveniently ignore that those early Jesuits subordinated every earthly concern to the salvation of souls and the glory of God. St. Ignatius of Loyola founded his order to combat Protestant heresy and defend Catholic orthodoxy—not to advance secular social justice causes that reduce human beings to demographic categories. The idea that these spiritual warriors would recognize their successors in today’s diversity administrators would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

The professors’ defense of their curriculum exposes the depths of their intellectual corruption. Pressed by federal prosecutors over their DEI agenda, they hid behind the First Amendment and invoked religious liberty. They claimed the right to teach in accordance with their Catholic mission. But what mission is that? The mission to split students by skin color? The mission to trade merit and moral fidelity for quotas and fashionable ideology? That is not religious freedom. If anything, it’s religious fraud.

The professors compound their dishonesty by portraying critics of DEI as enemies of inclusion and justice. But the truth is precisely the opposite. To oppose DEI is not to oppose inclusion; it is to defend an older and deeper vision of human dignity. 

Catholic teaching has always proclaimed something far more radical than the bureaucratic jargon of today’s progressives: that every single person, without exception, is created in the image of God, infinitely precious, and worthy of respect that transcends race, sex, or social standing. The Church affirmed this long before “inclusion” became a trendy hashtag. What DEI calls diversity is shallow bookkeeping; what Catholicism calls human dignity is an ontological truth. 

Perhaps most galling is the way these professors borrow the language of martyrdom. They pose as guardians of faith under siege, claiming to stand courageously against government persecution. Again, one might smirk if it weren’t so sickening. This comes from faculty at an institution that has spent decades draining its Catholic lifeblood, steadily removing the Church from its classrooms, elevating professors openly hostile to her teaching, and fostering an atmosphere where faithful Catholics feel despised rather than defended. 

To watch such people cast themselves as martyrs is a farce. They long ago gave to Caesar what was meant for God. They abandoned the Cross for the campus creed, and now they expect praise for betraying the very mission they were supposed to serve.

The truth is that Georgetown Law, like so many once-Catholic universities, stopped being authentically faithful decades ago. The name and the symbols remain, but the substance is gone. The professors’ essay only confirms what has long been obvious: these institutions serve progressive politics first and Catholic teaching not at all. Their appeal to Jesuit tradition is not reverence but grave robbery—digging up the bones of saints to dress their ideology in stolen vestments.

A truly Catholic response to this crisis would begin with honesty about what the Church teaches. It would demand courage to live by those teachings no matter the social cost. It would remember that Catholic education is meant to form students in wisdom and virtue—not groom them for political activism. It would trust that hearts transformed by grace will work for justice in ways that honor human dignity rather than weaponize it.

The professors may fool themselves, and they may fool their progressive allies, but they cannot fool history. History will mark their generation as the one that sold its Catholic birthright for a mess of ideological pottage. The tragedy is not that they face scrutiny from the state but that they have earned it by betraying the very mission they pretend to defend.

John Mac Ghlionn, Crisis Magazine

The administrative state likes this arrangement.  Permanent government bureaucrats prefer to limit the president of the United States to theatrical performances that include signing ceremonies and kissing babies.  For everything else, they insist, Americans should leave it to the experts.  Let the prosecutors decide whom to indict.  Let the generals and admirals decide whom to attack.  Let the central bankers decide the value of American currency.  Let the spies wage covert wars at home and across the globe.  “Trust the vast bureaucracy,” the bureaucrats say, “because the administrative state is made up of impartial, incorruptible, competent, and well-meaning experts.”

Except there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about a Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service, or Environmental Protection Agency.  These armies of unelected bureaucrats wield power as if they were a separate and unrivaled branch of government.  To the extent that these oversized monsters are remotely constitutional, however, it is only because they exercise delegated powers belonging exclusively to the president of the United States.  

The buck stops with the president, not with the bureaucrats.  Corporate news publications that insist it should be the other way around have no interest in protecting the Constitution.  They seek to undermine it.

Disgraced and fired former FBI director Jim Comey is finally facing his day in court for having lied while under oath.  Unethical New York Attorney General Letitia James has been indicted on bank fraud charges.  Warmonger and former national security advisor John Bolton might soon be indicted for illegally retaining classified documents.  Russia Collusion Hoax co-conspirator, anti-American communist, and former director of the CIA John Brennan might similarly find himself in the dock.  Notoriously dumb “yes-man,” Russia Collusion Hoax co-conspirator, and former director of national intelligence James Clapper is under criminal investigation.  Former FBI director Chris Wray has been accused of lying to Congress regarding the number of plainclothes agents operating during the January 6, 2021, protest for fair elections.  Other well-known names are being scrutinized for criminal prosecution. 

As each shoe drops, the corporate news media shriek about President Trump going after his “political enemies” and directly involving himself in Department of Justice charging decisions.  A reasonable journalist might wonder how former chiefs within the Intelligence Community could be considered “political enemies” if they weren’t performing their duties in a political manner.  But such an obvious follow-up question is never asked, and instead Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Wray, and other former, powerful officers within the administrative state are described as if they acted, at all times, selflessly and for the good of the country.  

The propaganda press is very concerned about portraying members of the permanent government as being above politics because if the American people understood them to be just as political as members of Congress, then voters might start to wonder why such a vast, unelected administrative state is allowed to exist.  The financial and media elites who control the mainstream press constantly convey to the public the unconstitutional idea that the heads of important departments and agencies act unilaterally and independently.  They pretend that the director of the FBI and the attorney general of the United States do not answer to the president.  They pretend that the CIA and U.S. military operate autonomously from the White House.  Mainstream media “reporters” desperately work to convince Americans that unelected bureaucrats are entitled to wield tremendous power all on their own.  They are not.

Article II of the Constitution lays the foundations for the Executive Branch, and the first sentence of the first section is specific and clear: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”  The first sentence of the second section defines the president’s authority over the military: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”  When it comes to executive authority, all power resides with the president.  Likewise, every Executive employee — from cabinet secretary to parking attendant — acts as a delegated beneficiary of the president’s Executive power.  

It is the president of the United States — not the attorney general — who is the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government.  If President Trump decided to exercise his vested prosecutorial powers, he could try cases in federal courts.  When federal prosecutors enforce the law in courtrooms across the country, they are empowered to do so only because they are acting on the president’s behalf.  When corporate news publications pretend that federal prosecutors are entitled to act independently from the White House, they are willfully disregarding the U.S. Constitution and foisting an illegitimate form of government upon the American people.  

As a simple thought experiment, consider what it would mean if senior officials in the Department of Justice were exclusively empowered to decide how to enforce the law.  It would mean that an unethical attorney such as Andrew Weissmann would be in a position to tell the president of the United States what he can and cannot do.  It would give government lawyers — whose Executive authority comes directly from the Office of the President — more authority than the president.  It would effectively rewrite the first sentence of the first section of Article II of the Constitution into some variant of this: The executive Power shall be vested in Andrew Weissmann or other unethical attorneys who have weaseled their way into becoming career bureaucrats within the Department of Justice.

We saw this illegitimate form of government play out in President Trump’s first term.  During the run-up to the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had conspired with Intelligence Community officers and White House officials to frame candidate Trump as a Russian spy.  Even though then-FBI director Jim Comey knew these allegations were false, the corrupt law enforcement officer used this frame-up job as leverage against President Trump the following year.  

Conniving career bureaucrats in the Justice Department convinced Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from all investigations involving the manufactured Russia Collusion Hoax.  President Trump eventually fired serial-liar Comey, and career bureaucrat and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (in his capacity as acting attorney general) appointed former FBI director Robert Mueller as a special counsel responsible for investigating the Democrat-constructed Russia Collusion Hoax.  

Unbeknownst to the American people, Special Counsel Mueller was suffering from some form of dementia, so unethical government prosecutor Andrew Weissmann effectively ran a two-year harassment campaign whose ultimate purpose was to impeach President Trump and remove him from office.  During this time, dishonorable lawyer Andrew Weissmann effectively held more power than the president of the United States.

any time, President Trump could have put an end to this nonsense.  He could have fired his attorney general and deputy attorney general.  He could have fired Mueller and Weissmann.  He could have concluded the whole affair and moved on.  But the pressure from Congress (Republicans included) and the propaganda press for President Trump to comply with the special counsel charade was intense.  Paul Ryan and other congressional RINOs even suggested that Trump would be impeached if he did not permit the manufactured investigation into the Democrat-constructed Russia Collusion Hoax to proceed.  In an effort to keep the peace, President Trump essentially gave corrupt lawyer and staunch Democrat Andrew Weissmann control over the presidency. 

The Weissmann presidency was absurd.  When corrupt lawyers are empowered to tell the president of the United States what he may legally do, the Constitution has been entirely shredded.  Instead of an elected president exclusively vested with Executive power, we end up with an unelected legal bureaucracy that enigmatically delegates a handful of incidental powers to the sitting president.  

The administrative state likes this arrangement.  Permanent government bureaucrats prefer to limit the president of the United States to theatrical performances that include signing ceremonies and kissing babies.  For everything else, they insist, Americans should leave it to the experts.  Let the prosecutors decide whom to indict.  Let the generals and admirals decide whom to attack.  Let the central bankers decide the value of American currency.  Let the spies wage covert wars at home and across the globe.  “Trust the vast bureaucracy,” the bureaucrats say, “because the administrative state is made up of impartial, incorruptible, competent, and well-meaning experts.”

Except there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about a Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service, or Environmental Protection Agency.  These armies of unelected bureaucrats wield power as if they were a separate and unrivaled branch of government.  To the extent that these oversized monsters are remotely constitutional, however, it is only because they exercise delegated powers belonging exclusively to the president of the United States.  

The buck stops with the president, not with the bureaucrats.  Corporate news publications that insist it should be the other way around have no interest in protecting the Constitution.  They seek to undermine it.

J. B. Shurk, American Thinker