I can negotiate with a man who wants to make money. I can’t negotiate with a communist who wants to kill me.” — Josh Lippincott on “X”
O, Norman Rockwell, where are you when we really need you? Forgive us, Emma Lazarus, our second thoughts about those huddled masses yearning to breathe free. . . the wretched refuse of your teeming shore(s). That was then and this is now. O, beautiful for spacious skies (but, why so many contrails criss-crossing overhead from the New York Island to the gulf stream waters?). O, land of tattooed grandmas, hostages of the tiny screens, the sexually confounded, the illiterate and innumerate, the lawless and the feckless, brainwashed youth marinated in Marx, the deranged, befuddled, the bought-off, the bug-eyed and bewildered, the lame, the halt, the addicts, grifters, hustlers, porn-stars, drugstore cowboys, alpha dogs, beta boys, shrieking Karens, and sundry victims of future-shock — whither, this hallowed experiment in nationhood?
Wouldn’t you like to know? In the meantime, husk that corn and flip them burgers! Turn them wieners! Mash your guacamole, pop another frostie, pass the Jack, lock-and-load, and mind those hovering drones! It is the 249th birthday of what remains of our country! Respect and thanks, ye ancestors!
At least, there is Mr. Trump in command now, not Norman Bates’s mother (or whatever decrepitating thing pretended to rule from the White House those previous four years of anarchy and agony). Daddy’s in da house — finally! — and things are being put in order against all odds. Yeah, you’re gonna clean up your damn room, or else! For many, this is a yuge relief. The rest of you, with your “No Kings” fake revolution, your Antifa monkey business, your mean girl psychodramas, your trans psychosis, your childless despair, your occult Gramscian schemes of destruction — please report back to the margins, where you belong.
The struggle to get normal again is epic and harsh. And, of course, many will deny that there ever was such a state of being, of minding your business in the purest sense of the phrase, acting like responsible, self-respecting, autonomous adults. In the immortal words of Aimee Mann, better wise-up. Childhood ends; something else begins. Take yourself seriously for a change, but keep your heart light, ready for the jokes that travail always presents. After all, nothing is funnier than unhappiness.
To get back to normal, to shed the burden of absurdities we’ve been heaped with, requires an accounting. You know this. Matter of fact, the absence of such an accounting has been bugging you no end. A whole lot of pain and suffering was inflicted across this land in recent years and barely a soul has had to do any ‘splainin’. It rankles badly. When, if ever, will these vicious, seditionist goons who turned the nation inside-out and upside-down be compelled to sit at the defendant’s table in a court of law?
I have a theory. The right dawgs, you well-know, have been in position for months. They understand the conspiracy hatched ten years ago through-and-through. Mr. Patel, remember, ran Chairman Devon Nunes’ investigation of the nascent RussiaRussiaRussia hoax in 2017 as senior counsel for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and helped draft the “Nunes Letter,” much abused by the perfidious news media, that laid out the plot by Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Obama & Company to smother Donald Trump’s newborn presidency in its crib.
Through some alchemy of mass political psychosis, that conspiracy has rolled on for a whole decade, one malice-driven prank after another. It continues to this day, an evermore rearguard action conducted by Deep State rogues and their public mouthpiece, Norm Eisen of Lawfare, Inc. Dan Bongino, now at Mr. Patel’s right-hand, chronicled that long march of treason in several books while he conducted daily podcast discourses on the workings of it all. “Remember the names,” he always said. Danny Boombatz remembers the names.
Normality, with all its own problems and hazards, demands that accounting for crimes and insults against the people of this sore-beset Republic. That fateful accounting is the one element missing in all of Mr. Trump’s implacable “winning” of the past five months. Those remembered names fester like an abscessed wound in America’s body politic. That wound must be cleaned, irrigated, debrided, and dressed in judicial process that restores the probity and honor of our much-abused law.
My theory is that a whole lot of other matters had to be cleared out of the way first. And now, that is pretty much where we’re at. Mr. Ratcliffe, formerly Director of National Intelligence (in Trump One) and now Director of the CIA, also knows all the names. He’s been as quiet as a tick on a wild hog lo these many months, but on Wednesday he issued quite a squawk, in the public arena of X, no less, along with a report by trusted agency colleagues titled (nontoxically) Tradecraft Review 2016 ICA on Election Interference 062625.
This fateful report, which lays out the originating crime, should commence the more general institutional accounting so overdue. It’s coming. Cases are being laid and made quietly in the background. Cases will be brought. The insults will be redressed. Derangement will slip away like that quicksilver mirage on a desert highway. The inordinate division of recent years will go with it. We will allow ourselves to be a people again, one nation under God, as the old chestnut goes. Next year, on our country’s 250th birthday, there will be a special reason to celebrate. For now, patience and fortitude.
Before I wrote about Second Amendment stuff most of the time, I wrote a lot about education. From Title IX abuse to woke administrators and teachers, I covered a lot.
Then I came here and started writing about this, which is at least as important as reforming our educational system.
Yet I always knew there would be some opportunities to return to talking about colleges. After all, they’re notoriously anti-gun, too, as we see from a situation in Maine.
A Christian student in a class apparently talked previously about finding Jesus. So far, so good, apparently.
Yet the student wanted to talk about the Second Amendment for her next assignment. The teacher’s response, though, is just bonkers.
Zohran Mamdani has admitted listing his race as “black” on a college admission form. He is not black—he is ethnically South Asian because, by his own admission, his ancestors all came from India. It is impossible to know what went through his head when Mamdani lied on his Columbia University admission form, but the most obvious reason for doing so would have been to give himself an advantage over other applicants. If that was the case, it was not just lying; it was cheating.
Lying on a college admission form is not a criminal offense, but most would say it is unethical. It does not reflect the sort of integrity that one would expect in the mayor of America’s largest city. I would say it’s not at all different from what Elizabeth Warren (“Pocahontas”) did in representing herself as a Native American.
In the academic world, at least before the recent Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action in admissions, a great deal of preference was given to minority candidates, and surely Mamdani would have known that. His excuses so far have been remarkably lame: Since he was born in Uganda, he was “sort of” black, and he wanted to “fully represent” himself. Or another: There was “no place on the form” to list himself as “born in Africa” but not African, but “Asian, so he checked “black” and “Asian.” I think most people would say this was disingenuous. It seems he was taking advantage.
If that’s the case, how else has Mamdani “taken advantage” since graduating from Bowdoin College (he did not attend Columbia, despite his “black” race)? He has never referred to himself as black on the campaign trail, but he has boasted that he is a Muslim and would be the first South Asian to become mayor of a major U.S. city. As a result, he received heavy support from both groups. He has also conducted a campaign that I would call disingenuous, promising a full array of free benefits to voters that, by law, he cannot provide or pay for.
Mamdani seems to misrepresent himself in other ways. Is he a “democratic socialist,” like Bernie Sanders, or a communist, as President Trump called him? Why does he refuse to admit that, in many respects, he may be a communist? He has talked about seizing the means of production from capitalists and distributing it to workers, a classic communist line. He promises state-run grocery stores, subsidized housing, free transportation, and a host of other “free” benefits as if these benefits would not have to be paid for by someone—and there again, his communist leanings are showing. He would steal from the rich to pay for his programs.
It may also be that, behind his smile and charm, there lurks a totalitarian, but Mamdani is not going to admit it. Democratic socialists are always “democratic” as long as they are winning; when they become less popular, as Hugo Chávez and then Nicolás Maduro did in Venezuela, they rig the elections so there is no more democracy.
Zohran Mamdani has admitted listing his race as “black” on a college admission form. He is not black—he is ethnically South Asian because, by his own admission, his ancestors all came from India. It is impossible to know what went through his head when Mamdani lied on his Columbia University admission form, but the most obvious reason for doing so would have been to give himself an advantage over other applicants. If that was the case, it was not just lying; it was cheating.
Lying on a college admission form is not a criminal offense, but most would say it is unethical. It does not reflect the sort of integrity that one would expect in the mayor of America’s largest city. I would say it’s not at all different from what Elizabeth Warren (“Pocahontas”) did in representing herself as a Native American.
In the academic world, at least before the recent Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action in admissions, a great deal of preference was given to minority candidates, and surely Mamdani would have known that. His excuses so far have been remarkably lame: Since he was born in Uganda, he was “sort of” black, and he wanted to “fully represent” himself. Or another: There was “no place on the form” to list himself as “born in Africa” but not African, but “Asian, so he checked “black” and “Asian.” I think most people would say this was disingenuous. It seems he was taking advantage.
If that’s the case, how else has Mamdani “taken advantage” since graduating from Bowdoin College (he did not attend Columbia, despite his “black” race)? He has never referred to himself as black on the campaign trail, but he has boasted that he is a Muslim and would be the first South Asian to become mayor of a major U.S. city. As a result, he received heavy support from both groups. He has also conducted a campaign that I would call disingenuous, promising a full array of free benefits to voters that, by law, he cannot provide or pay for.
Mamdani seems to misrepresent himself in other ways. Is he a “democratic socialist,” like Bernie Sanders, or a communist, as President Trump called him? Why does he refuse to admit that, in many respects, he may be a communist? He has talked about seizing the means of production from capitalists and distributing it to workers, a classic communist line. He promises state-run grocery stores, subsidized housing, free transportation, and a host of other “free” benefits as if these benefits would not have to be paid for by someone—and there again, his communist leanings are showing. He would steal from the rich to pay for his programs.
It may also be that, behind his smile and charm, there lurks a totalitarian, but Mamdani is not going to admit it. Democratic socialists are always “democratic” as long as they are winning; when they become less popular, as Hugo Chávez and then Nicolás Maduro did in Venezuela, they rig the elections so there is no more democracy.
Zohran Mamdani has admitted listing his race as “black” on a college admission form. He is not black—he is ethnically South Asian because, by his own admission, his ancestors all came from India. It is impossible to know what went through his head when Mamdani lied on his Columbia University admission form, but the most obvious reason for doing so would have been to give himself an advantage over other applicants. If that was the case, it was not just lying; it was cheating.
Lying on a college admission form is not a criminal offense, but most would say it is unethical. It does not reflect the sort of integrity that one would expect in the mayor of America’s largest city. I would say it’s not at all different from what Elizabeth Warren (“Pocahontas”) did in representing herself as a Native American.
In the academic world, at least before the recent Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action in admissions, a great deal of preference was given to minority candidates, and surely Mamdani would have known that. His excuses so far have been remarkably lame: Since he was born in Uganda, he was “sort of” black, and he wanted to “fully represent” himself. Or another: There was “no place on the form” to list himself as “born in Africa” but not African, but “Asian, so he checked “black” and “Asian.” I think most people would say this was disingenuous. It seems he was taking advantage.
If that’s the case, how else has Mamdani “taken advantage” since graduating from Bowdoin College (he did not attend Columbia, despite his “black” race)? He has never referred to himself as black on the campaign trail, but he has boasted that he is a Muslim and would be the first South Asian to become mayor of a major U.S. city. As a result, he received heavy support from both groups. He has also conducted a campaign that I would call disingenuous, promising a full array of free benefits to voters that, by law, he cannot provide or pay for.
Mamdani seems to misrepresent himself in other ways. Is he a “democratic socialist,” like Bernie Sanders, or a communist, as President Trump called him? Why does he refuse to admit that, in many respects, he may be a communist? He has talked about seizing the means of production from capitalists and distributing it to workers, a classic communist line. He promises state-run grocery stores, subsidized housing, free transportation, and a host of other “free” benefits as if these benefits would not have to be paid for by someone—and there again, his communist leanings are showing. He would steal from the rich to pay for his programs.
It may also be that, behind his smile and charm, there lurks a totalitarian, but Mamdani is not going to admit it. Democratic socialists are always “democratic” as long as they are winning; when they become less popular, as Hugo Chávez and then Nicolás Maduro did in Venezuela, they rig the elections so there is no more democracy.
Then there is Israel. Once again, Mamdani has parsed his words in ways that many would call dishonest. Mamdani claims that he is not “antisemitic” (even former Hillary Clinton aide Al Mottler claims that he is) but admits that he is “anti-Zionist” and refuses to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada.” Although few would call him “pro-Israel,” it seems that Mamdani wants to appear friendly to Jews in the presence of Jews, friendly to Muslims in the presence of Muslims, and friendly to intifada terrorists in the presence of intifada terrorists. In other words, he is an opportunist.
But he is not “just another politician.” He has refused to sign petitions condemning the Holocaust and affirming Israel’s right to exist. Refusing to condemn October 7 immediately after the attack is not just disingenuous; it is evil, as is refusing to condemn the Holocaust. There is no comparison between lying on a college application and refusing to condemn “globalize the intifada.” “From the river to the sea” has no place in American politics, and anyone who attempts to kowtow to such an opinion has no place running for mayor of NYC.
Jewish politicians who have expressed support or praise for Mamdani, as have Rep. Jerry Nadler and Sen. Chuck Schumer, are playing with fire. The general opinion seems to be that Mamdani will win anyway, so Jewish residents of New York need to work with him so as to preserve their community’s security. Anyone who has read Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem knows how dangerous this opinion is. As Arendt documented (and she was widely criticized for doing so), there were many Jews in positions of authority who facilitated the Nazi selection and elimination of Jewish people. It was not just Germans like Eichmann who carried out Hitler’s orders. Jewish leaders in New York need to be uncompromising in their support of the State of Israel and of the Jewish population everywhere.
It is a lie, pure and simple, to represent oneself as black when one is not. It is dishonest to promise a host of benefits, from state-run groceries to subsidized housing, when one cannot deliver. It is disingenuous to speak of oneself as a “friend to Jews” when one is not.
But it is far worse to refuse to condemn the actions of Hamas and of the intifada. It is one thing and not so very uncommon to be a political opportunist. It is quite another to appear to accept terrorism, antisemitism, and violence, including violence against Jewish students on U.S. campuses. Religious freedom is a fundamental right in the U.S., and it cannot be abridged, even by a politician who thinks he can have it both ways. If Mamdani fails to condemn the violence of Hamas, condemn the intifada, condemn the Holocaust and condemn violence against Jews everywhere, he should withdraw from the mayoral race immediately.
Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).
Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong.
A Republican lawmaker on Thursday proposed that President Donald Trump be added to Mount Rushmore.
Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., sent a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and took to social media to express his request shortly before the House passed the Senate version of the president’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Ogles wrote: “Given the scale and scope of President Trump’s recent achievements — especially the impending enactment of the Big Beautiful Bill, the historic act that will ignite America’s Golden Age — it is essential that we immortalize President Trump’s likeness on Mount Rushmore.”
“Like Washington, Trump did not seek his position for glory but out of love for his country, championing American independence and reshaping the presidency with dynamism, clarity, and purpose,” Ogles wrote on X.
“Like Jefferson, he expanded America’s horizons by pursuing new frontiers and breaking away from deep state tyrants.
“Like Teddy Roosevelt, Trump took on entrenched interests, reinvigorated American industry, and avenged the working class against bureaucratic bloat and corporate corruption.
“The legacy of Mount Rushmore cannot remain frozen in stone; it must evolve to reflect the full arc of American history, including its most recent and transformative chapter.”
Ogles’ post included an image of the national memorial, with Trump’s head added all the way on the right, next to Abraham Lincoln’s.
In a historic victory for pro-life Americans, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” on Thursday, a sweeping reconciliation measure that includes provisions to defund Planned Parenthood, Once President Trump signs the bill into law it will be the first time that the radical Planned Parenthood abortion business has been defunded.
The vote was 218-214 with Republican Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., a fiscal hawk, and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., a centrist, joining all Democrats in voting against it.
The new law will redirect hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to community-based, pro-life healthcare providers and away from Planned Parenthood and Big Abortion.
The bill, known as H.R. 1, marks a significant step in the pro-life movement’s long-standing effort to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood, a radical organization that kills over 400,000 babies in abortions annually while receiving more than $700 million in government funds.
The defunding provision, outlined in Section 44126 of the bill, effectively terminates Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood, closing a loophole that has allowed the organization to access federal funds despite the Hyde Amendment’s ban on direct taxpayer funding for abortions. Pro-life leaders hailed the move as a fulfillment of decades-long promises to prioritize women’s health without supporting abortion.
Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, told LifeNews she was delighted by the news:
We applaud pro-life members in Congress and pro-life leadership, including House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, for keeping their promises to the American people and delivering a bill that prevents taxpayer funds from subsidizing the abortion industry.
For decades, Americans have made it clear that they do not want their tax dollars funding abortion. Today, Congress delivered.
Women deserve compassionate, life-affirming care that upholds the dignity of both the mother and the baby. This legislation sends the message that we can—and should—foster a culture that cherishes both lives.
The pro-life measure would also raise from $2,000 to $2,200 per child and enshrine it permanently in the tax code — replacing the temporary expansion set to expire after 2025.
“The American people should not have to continue subsidizing the abortion industry – and now, thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill, they won’t be,” said Jennie Bradley Lichter, President of March for Life Action. “We joyfully anticipate President Trump signing this landmark legislation, which ensures that Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars are not being used to prop up an industry whose business model is built on ending human lives, misleading pregnant women into thinking that abortion is their only option, and delivering substandard healthcare that they then charge to the government.
“For years the majority of Americans have said they reject this status quo. Women deserve better – America deserves better – and we thank President Trump, Speaker of the House Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader Thune, as well as all of the other pro-life champions in Congress who brought this bill across the finish line.”
SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser celebrated the news, saying:
“Defunding the abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, marks the greatest pro-life victory since the Dobbs decision. For the first time in history, Congress is halting forced taxpayer funding of Big Abortion in the Medicaid program for one year. This will save lives and strip over $500 million from Big Abortion’s coffers. Combined with last week’s Supreme Court decision empowering states to do the same, this represents tremendous progress toward achieving a decades-long goal that has long proved elusive.
“For decades, Big Abortion has siphoned off billions in tax dollars to prop up a scandal-ridden industry built on abortion and partisan politics. Planned Parenthood alone commits over 400,000 abortions a year while services like cancer screenings continue to plummet — all while pocketing over $2 million every day from taxpayers
“The One Big Beautiful Bill delivers a historic win on a critical priority: stopping forced taxpayer funding of the abortion industry. We congratulate Speaker Johnson, Leader Thune, Chairmen Guthrie, Crapo, Graham, and Arrington, and our allies in Congress for their tireless efforts to make this victory possible, and we look forward to President Trump signing it into law.”
Previously, the Senate had passed the One Big Beautiful Bill, which will defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business. Vice President J.D. Vance broke a 50-50 tie to get the measure approved.
Vance had to break the tie after three Republican senators voted no on the measure: Sens. Rand Paul, Thom Tillis, and Susan Collins. All Democrats joined them.
According to Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report, the organization killed more than babies in 400,000 abortions in 2023 and 2024 and received nearly $800 million from taxpayers.
The Hyde Amendment already prohibits federal funds from directly paying for abortions. However, Planned Parenthood receives approximately $700 million annually through Medicaid reimbursements and Title X grants. Pro-life leaders argue this funding frees up resources for Planned Parenthood’s abortion operations.
Before the Senate vote, Democrats tried and lost a vote to remove the defunding provision. The final vote was 51-49 against the pro-abortion amendment with all Republicans exception Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voting against the Demcorats’ amendment to stop defunding.
Democrats, including Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), decried the parliamentarian’s ruling.
Every Senate Democrat voted no after radical pro-abortion senator Chuck Schumer promised all pro-abortion Democrats would vote in lockstep.
Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina voted no as well. They are pro-life but object to the bill over other fiscal concerns even though it would result in defunding Planned Parenthood for the first time ever. Senate Majority Leader John Thune reportedly worked with Vice President JD Vance for three hours to get these Republican lawmakers on board with opening debate.
Reconciliation bills in 2015 and 2017 included a provision to stop funneling American tax dollars to Big Abortion for one year. The Supreme Court ruled this week in Medina that states are also allowed to defund Big Abortion. This year, Congress can finally stop funding for Big Abortion – an industry that harms women and girls, destroys unborn babies’ lives and is a terrible investment for taxpayers.
Asserts as a matter of natural law the ability of a people to assume political independence; acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained.
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”[65]Preamble
Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.[64]
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”Indictment
A bill of grievances documenting the king’s “repeated injuries and usurpations” of the Americans’ rights and liberties.[64]
“Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
“He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
“He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
“He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
“He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.
“He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
“He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
“For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
“For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
“For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
“For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
“For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
“For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
“He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
“He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
“He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”Failed warnings
Describes the colonists’ attempts to inform and warn the British people of the king’s injustice, and the British people’s failure to act. Even so, it affirms the colonists’ ties to the British as “brethren.”[64]
“Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.”Denunciation
This section essentially finishes the case for independence. The conditions that justified revolution have been shown.[64]
“We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”Conclusion
The signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions and, by necessity, the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion contains, at its core, the Lee Resolution that had been passed on July 2.
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”Signatures
The first and most famous signature on the engrossed copy was that of John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress. Two future presidents (Thomas Jefferson and John Adams) and a father and great-grandfather of two other presidents (Benjamin Harrison V) were among the signatories. Edward Rutledge (age 26) was the youngest signer, and Benjamin Franklin (age 70) was the oldest signer. The fifty-six signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows (from north to south):[66]
The version of the signed document that people saw at the time was also signed by Mary Katherine Goddard. She was the postmaster of Baltimore and was tasked by the Continental Congress with printing the signed Declaration. Her normal signature, in her capacity as the owner of the Maryland Journal, was “M.K. Goddard,” but she signed the Declaration of Independence with her full name.
America finally decided to take its own side in the fight for civilization by canceling the concert tour visa for a ridiculous British punk/rap duo called Bob Vylan – get it? It’s like “Bob Dylan,” except “Vylan,” which sounds like “villain.” That’s the cleverest thing about them. They are basically Milli Vanilli with tattoos, worse music, and less originality – though, having heard snippets of their gawdawful racket, if I were them, I’d cop to plagiarism like the OG Milli Vanilli rather than take the blame for creating the sonic atrocities they call songs. It’s bad even for metal rap, with lots of shrieking about how they want to kill Jews, among other things. Wikipedia describes their oeuvre thusly: Bob Vylan “merges elements of punk, hip hop, grime, and hardcore, and features criticisms of the British establishment, inequality, racism, sexism, and homophobia.” It sounds bad enough that you can probably get Harvard class credit just for listening to it.
Bob Vylan’s popularity, such as it is, is attributable solely to the kind of self-loathing only affluent dumb people in the West are capable of. We’re probably not supposed to point out the obvious, but to send a tingle down the legs of the femboys and posh girls, they cultivate a sort of Third World tribal barbarian vibe; lots of scary shouts, tattoos, unwashed dreads, and no-shirt/shorts attire designed to evoke the kind of primitive tribesmen who once fronted to British soldiers and received a volley of musket fire in return. Of course, that was back before the English sacrificed their testicles on an altar to Princess Di.
Apparently, they are also vegans, as if you needed another reason to despise them.
In any case, they were going to do an American tour, but they just did the big Glastonbury concert in Britain, where they led a chant of “Death to the IDF” to their audience of pasty morons with bad teeth. Now, there are about 675,000 people in the IDF, mostly Jewish (not by coincidence), and it’s fair to ask whether Bob Vylan wants to murder all of them or just some portion of them. Of course, the regime media will be eager to jump in with an explanation that the obvious meaning of what Bob Vylan said isn’t exactly what Bob Vylan said, and it’s your fault for thinking that the words Bob Vylan used meant what the words Bob Vylan used mean. You’re probably racist because you expect the duo to communicate with its language. In short, they’re either psychotics or pretending to be psychotics.
We get a lot of this kind of gamesmanship on the left. Down in South Africa, you have stadiums full of savages stomping out their catchy ditty “Kill the Boer,” only to have outlets like the New York Times jump to explain that this is really an aspirational notion, not a literal call to killing white farmers, even though the same people are literally killing Boers as we speak. Similarly, we get Democrat ingenue Zohran Mamdani demanding that we “Globalize the intifada,” and then we are told it doesn’t actually mean murdering a bunch of Jews, even though his friends are globalizing the intifada here in America by murdering a bunch of Jews. At some point, whether you are a psychotic or just pretending to be a psychotic, it doesn’t matter. If you’re psychotic adjacent, we need to treat you accordingly.
Leftists love this kind of butch posturing; it allows them deniability of the fact that it’s not posturing, it’s a game plan. Remember, Step 1 is to deny it happened. We’re almost at Step 2, where they admit it’s happening, but it’s not that bad. That will be followed by Step 3, where they admit it’s happening a lot and contend that it’s actually a good thing. Step 4 points out that the real problem is you noticing what they are doing because you are racist, Islamophobic, or some other lame epithet.
Are we refusing to allow these foreigners into America because of what they intend to say? Yes, and it’s about time. If you’re in America, you have a right to free speech, even if you’re a blithering idiot who embraces unconscionable evil. But we’re not talking about the Democrats at the moment. We’re talking about strangers to our country, invited guests who presume to take their invitation, light it on fire, and attempt to make it a suppository for their hosts. No, we are neither legally nor morally obligated to allow these degenerates to cross our border and plant their filthy feet upon our sacred soil. It’s about time we stood up for ourselves, and a basic part of that is not to let every weirdo, loser, and mutation with a hit single and an earnest wish that we all be murdered into our country.
There was a time, not that long ago, when I would have had second thoughts about barring somebody’s entry to the country because of what he might say. I like the First Amendment. I like free speech. I also like not having foreigners help destroy the country that made those things possible. It’s not as if Bob Vylan is out there leading its grotesque Glastonbury crowd in cheers to free that poor woman who their dictatorship imprisoned for 30 months because she tweeted something mean. They support that, and they would support doing it to you. Why would we help them? They’re like that meme about how, when I have no power, I demand freedom because that’s your principle and how I deny you your freedom when I have power because that’s my principle. We don’t have to ask what a country run by the likes of Bob Vylan and its fan base would look like; we have only to look at the kind of garbage countries they idolize.
It’s about time that we all realize our enemies are leveraging the rights of us citizens in order to enslave us citizens. Some of us are red-pilled; we declined the opportunity to join a suicide pact where we go first. We gave unbridled tolerance for wretched deviance a shot, and what did we get? People murdering Jews. Perverts in our schools skeeving on our kids. Basically, every problem we now face was a large part because we somehow got it into our heads as a civilization that our principles require we put up with this crap. But if a principle leads you to disenfranchisement, enslavement, and death, it’s a pretty crappy principle, and we’re not going to do those anymore.
There is zero reason, morally, legally, philosophically, or of any other kind, for allowing these kinds of degenerates into our great nation with the express intent of them seeking to undermine it. Does that make us hypocrites? No, it makes us adults. And it makes us not suckers.
Democrats suffering from severe cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) are now displaying another symptom: staging ill-conceived confrontations to get street cred with their antifa progressive base. Some recent headlines:
North Carolina state Rep. Julie von Haefen attended a “No Kings” protest and was photographed holding what appeared to be an effigy of the decapitated heads of Trump and his senior policy advisor, Stephen Miller.
U.S. Representative LaMonica McIver was charged in a three-count indictment for forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers—all seen on video.
New York City Mayoral candidate Brad Lander got the publicity he desired by trying to help illegal alien criminals by allegedly assaulting a federal law enforcement officer.
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested as he and other elected Democrats allegedly tried to break into the Delaney Hall detention facility.
California Senator Alex Padilla started shouting when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was giving a speech in Los Angeles. Because he was not wearing credentials showing that he is a sitting U.S. senator, law enforcement physically removed the threatening Padilla. Almost on cue, Governor Gavin “Hair Gel” Newsom made a statement about what happened. Then, as predictable as the sun rising in the east, Padilla gave tearful interviews on MSNBC and other leftist “news” organizations. Of course, he cried on the senate floor…oh, the inhumanity!
Democrat juvenile behavior began in earnest during President Trump’s March 4 speech to a joint session of Congress. New York City Democrat Council Member Robert Holden, who represents District 30 in Queens, expressed it best as he opened his March 6 op-ed with:
As a lifelong Democrat, I never imagined I would watch my own party embarrass itself so thoroughly—and so publicly—as it did during Tuesday’s joint session of Congress.
Was there a memo to Democrats telling them to start accosting people? In “Can the Left Ever Stop Its Craziness,” Victor Davis Hanson says the left won’t stop its two-year-old tantrums, especially when they’re directed at President Trump, because they don’t understand how else to act.
Democrats behaving in ways that never before would have been acceptable for American politicians isn’t just happening in major cities. I live in a small Orange County, California, city of nearly 50,000 residents, and I recently had a 1:1 confrontation with our mayor. Before you roll your eyes at “California,” there are many pockets of conservative-leaning areas throughout this state of nearly 40 million residents. Yet, as more conservatives vote with their feet, red California cities are turning purple and eventually blue.
No one was arrested during our run-in, but in my opinion, it was just another example of an elected Democrat official displaying a lack of respect and acting more like a two-year-old child than a mature adult.
As to my incident, until recently, few people knew or cared what political party our city council members belonged to as long as Cypress was well managed—and it had been for decades under majority Republican leadership. Past city councils had Democrats, Republicans, and/or Independents, and Cypress thrived with an outstanding business corridor and a well-maintained middle-class community. However, some residents believe things started to change for the worse several years ago when a disruptive Democrat was elected to the city
Seeing what was happening in our city and having free speech in America, a diverse group of residents came together and founded Keep Cypress United to support candidates, propositions, and issues that we believe will keep Cypress united as a welcoming community to live or work. The group is self-funded and does not seek or accept outside donations.
On May 22, a fellow Keep Cypress United (KCU) member and I were standing outside a local supermarket distributing a flyer that questioned statements and actions taken by the newly appointed Cypress mayor. Hizzoner currently holds this mostly ceremonial position because, for the first time ever, the council comprises a Democrat majority. Despite living in our community for only three years, he leapfrogged into the positions over the heads of colleagues with decades of residency.
One of the recipients of our flyer must have been Hizzoner’s supporter. Within 20 minutes after we started our flyer campaign, Hizzoner rushed over to the supermarket and wanted to know what I was doing. (At the time, he probably didn’t realize another KCU member was at the other entrance.) My perception was that he was very angry, as he challenged me about questioning his position and votes on multiple issues.
Think about it—the mayor hastily drove to the neighborhood supermarket wanting to know why a resident was questioning his comments or actions! I was shocked, but shouldn’t have been considering what Democrats in California and around the country are doing with regularity: public tantrums and public histrionics for their own benefit and aligned
Then, after taking a photo of the handout, Hizzoner abruptly left. Then about 20 minutes later, he came back! This time, he wanted to meet with me. A few days later, I emailed him about the possibility of a meeting with me and another KCU member.
Bear in mind, I am an almost 70-year-old female (yes, biological female) and legally deaf without the assistance of hearing aids. It is reasonable that I would want to be accompanied to a meeting with Hizzoner, who is a thirty-something male who made me feel very uncomfortable. Before he would discuss dates at a local coffee house, Hizzoner insisted on knowing why I would not meet with him 1:1.
I told him that I felt that politicians should not wrangle with constituents who are exercising their right to free speech in a local supermarket. I added,
Every elected official (from the president to a small city mayor) whose policies are criticized will claim that false statements (aka misinformation) are being made. It’s POLITICS!
I ended the email by saying that my level of discomfort with our interaction was such that “I will ask someone to attend with me as I do not feel comfortable meeting with you 1:1.”
After several emails as to the date, time, and location, Hizzoner stated that if I planned to bring someone with me, then he would have no choice but to bring someone with him, despite the meeting occurring at a public coffee shop. Oh, for goodness’ sake, the guy is an elected official, and he’s afraid to meet with two constituents who have issues with some of his statements and votes? Fuhgeddaboudit!
I sent an official grievance about Hizzoner’s rude actions to the Cypress city administrator. His response was that I should go to the police. Was that a small city version of New York Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul dismissing charges against Comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander?
If Hizzoner could drive over to the supermarket twice because some constituents do not agree with his positions/votes, perhaps Hizzoner might soon give a long speech on the city council floor about me and Keep Cypress United just as New Jersey Senator Cory Booker did on the senate floor ridiculously railing against President Trump and the Republican Party. (If you missed Booker’s stunt, don’t worry, his book is coming out soon!)
What they’re doing is clearly creating stunts. These are political stunts. I mean, this is designed to us. It’s sort of like porn for their base. There’s a lot of capital right now in the Democratic Party for getting arrested.
From rural towns to small cities to major metropolises, it appears the latest Democrat Party strategy is to verbally and/or physically confront those with different views. Perhaps because my confrontation with Hizzoner wasn’t caught on video, it didn’t culminate as most of those interactions do; that is, with the politician immediately thereafter having a public tantrum, and crying that he or she is being treated unfairly after the childish and unprofessional displays in response to constructive criticism and legitimate questions by constituents and residents.
Robin M. Itzler is a regular contributor to American Thinker. She is the founder and editor of Patriot Neighbors, a free weekly national newsletter. Robin can be reached at PatriotNeighbors@yahoo.com.
Soon, another Fourth of July will be upon us. What do we celebrate on the Fourth of July? Of course, it’s America’s birthday—dating back to 1776. That’s when 56 men agreed by voice vote for the final wording of our nation’s birth certificate….the Declaration of Independence. A month later they began to sign it.
Samuel Adams said at that signing on August 1, 1776: “We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds his subjects assuming that freedom of thought and dignity of self-direction which he bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting sun, may his kingdom come!”
In an Oxford University Press book on this often-neglected founding father, author Benjamin H. Irvin, writes: “The Declaration of Independence represented in many ways the culmination of Samuel Adams’s life work.”
Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the first major draft of the Declaration of Independence, penned a letter years later to Samuel Adams on March 29, 1801. He said that as he approached matters of state, he would ask himself: “[I]s this in keeping with the words of Sam Adams, the patriarch of liberty?”
Although many people today try to minimize the role of God in our nation’s founding, the fact is that the Lord is mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence.
For example, the Declaration mentions the importance of conforming to natural law, as it refers to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”
Sir William Blackstone, noted 18th century British legal authority, was cited by the founding fathers many times and has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court throughout our history. He wrote the following before the Declaration mentioned “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”: “Thus, when the Supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, He impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart…This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.”
The Declaration also says that all men are created equal and have been endowed by their CREATOR with unalienable rights. Somebody may claim that that is not a significant remark. Perhaps it was just a meaningless sop from the founders to placate the Christian populace back home that they represented.
The extensive writings of the founders contradict that notion. And rejecting God as the source of our rights can be fatal. The 20th century was the bloodiest century in the annals of history. In the 1900s, humanity saw the rise of totalitarian governments, which were explicitly anti-God, such as the Communists or the National Socialists, where they did NOT acknowledge God-given rights—and millions died as a result.
A few years ago, a museum opened up in Washington, D.C., that commemorates those killed by the Communists. In the 20th century alone, the figures were staggering.
The museum website notes, “The Victims of Communism Museum is dedicated to commemorating the more than 100 million people killed by Communism around the world and to those pursuing freedom from totalitarian regimes.”
They also write: “Witness the rise of Communism, the terror of Lenin and Stalin, the growth of the tragic Gulag system, the eastward expansion of Communism, and share in the inspiring stories of those fighting against the most deadly ideology man has ever created.” Communism explicitly rejected God, and attempted to build a manmade utopia.
But what about the victims of National Socialism, better known as the Nazis, in Germany? Some people try to blame Christianity for the rise of Nazis—despite all the Christians who risked their lives and paid the ultimate price in opposition to Nazi Germany.
But this distorts the record, as the Nazis were also explicitly anti-God. Adolf Hitler once said, “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.”
In a third reference to God in the Declaration, the framers said that they have no recourse but to appeal to “the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of [their] intentions.” Dr. Peter Lillback, founder of Providence Forum, notes that since the vast majority of the founders were professing Christians, and since they were well-versed in the Bible, and since the Scriptures teach that Jesus is the Judge of the world, this is a reference to Jesus in the Declaration of Independence.
The final reference to the Almighty is at the end of the document, where they say that they were relying on the help of Divine Providence. Providence is an old-fashioned way of referring to the Biblical God, who answers prayer.
The framers declared independence from Great Britain, but at the same time, they declared dependence upon Almighty God. So Happy Birthday, America.
Ever wondered why exactly a Salisbury steak tastes so different from a hamburger patty, even though they kind of appear to be the same thing? While each of these classic dishes can be delicious in their own right, typically, a hamburger patty is simply a formed patty made of beef. Depending on the cook, a hamburger patty may be seasoned with a little salt and pepper, or might just be a straight-up, unseasoned piece of formed ground beef. Salisbury steak, however, is more than just a bun-less hamburger. Created by Dr. James H. Salisbury at the end of the 19th century, the now-beloved comfort food was designed to support the gut health of Civil War soldiers, many of whom were dying in droves due to digestive illnesses. Salisbury theorized that a diet rich in beef and coffee could lessen the stomach problems soldiers were having in the field. While Dr. Salisbury’s theories didn’t hold up over time, his namesake steak has remained a staple in the diets of many Americans.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, products sold as Salisbury steak have to contain at least 65% meat, with up to 25% of a Salisbury steak’s meat content coming from pork. The remaining ingredients may include bread crumbs, rolled oats, oat flakes, tomato purée, gravy, and more. While a Salisbury steak certainly does contain beef, its typical ingredient profile is closer to a slice of meatloaf than it is to a plain hamburger patty.
How to make your Salisbury steak distinct from hamburger patties
Whether you already have a classic Salisbury steak recipe you know and love or you’re considering making the comfort food at home for the first time, you’ve got options. The dish is highly customizable, and with a little experimenting, you can find the perfect method for creating a Salisbury steak to come back to time and again.
Play around with seasonings in your recipe. Try going beyond the standard brown sugar, salt, and pepper blend by adding cajun seasoning, garlic powder, or paprika (or try smoked paprika to create a different, more savory flavor profile). Binding agents also leave room for customization, as does gravy. While Salisbury steak is traditionally served with mushroom gravy, caffeinated red-eye gravy is a fun twist (and gives a nod to Dr. Salisbury’s theory that a coffee-heavy diet was ideal next to Salisbury steak). In the mood for something a bit more indulgent? Dredging your Salisbury steaks in seasoned flour before frying in a pan with a bit of oil can add an unexpected bit of crunch that elevates your recipe. This tip also works super-well if you’re working with frozen Salisbury steaks and want to transform them into a hearty family dinner.
