Iran issued a sickening threat against President Trump Wednesday, broadcasting a picture of the commander in chief during the 2024 Butler rally assassination attempt — with the words “This time it will not miss the target.”

This ominous warning was aired on Iranian state-run TV, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported.

It marks Tehran’s most direct threat yet against Trump, following his repeated threats that the US will strike the country if it continues its brutal crackdown on anti-government protesters.

The image of a bloodied-Trump appeared to be taken from a pro-government rally in Iran, which has been allowed to air despite nationwide blackouts over the protests against the regime. 

Trump was infamously the target of an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, when he was shot in the ear by gunman Thomas Crooks. 

Iran has made threats to kill Trump in the past, including a 2022 video posted by the regime depicting an assassination attempt on the president at his Mar-a-Lago golf course prior to the 2024 election. 

The video resurfaced following the arrest of would-be assassin Ryan Routh, who was arrested while trying to take aim at Trump on the same golf course. 

The Justice Department also said that in 2024, the US thwarted an Iranian-led plot to kill Trump after arresting Farhad Shakeri, who was allegedly tasked by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to murder the president for the regime, according to court documents.  

Along with the anti-Trump signs, those attending the latest pro-government rallies in Iran were heard shouting, “Death to America!” as they vowed their support for Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 

The pro-regime rallies are meant to try and undermine the widespread protests against Tehran that have carried on since Dec. 28 over the nation’s failing economy. 

The protests have triggered a brutal crackdown on dissent, with more than 2,500 people killed since the demonstrations began, according to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, with thousands more arrested. 

Tensions between Tehran and Washington have ramped up over the protests, with Trump warning that a military operation was on the table over the attack on the protesters. 

Officials in Tehran, meanwhile, have said that it would attack American troops in the region and even Israel if the US strikes Iran. 

Ronny Reyes, New York Post

While the American revolution was ostensibly a revolution, in reality it was more of a divorce where the kids kept the same parents, they just lived with their Mom.  Their Dad was still their Dad, but they didn’t have much to do with him. In contrast, the French and Russian revolutions were basically the children taking their parents out back and shooting them…

The American revolution was a revolution, but it wasn’t revolutionary. But what was revolutionary was the United States Constitution.

For the first time in history, a government was formed by a written constitution that described rights that were inherent from God (as articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the constitution of most of the original 13 states) upon which the government could not impede.  What’s more, the entire thing was created for the specific purpose of limiting the power of government. This was made clear by the Bill of Rights, which—beginning with Massachusetts—became the quid pro quo for getting the Constitution ratified. And in case anyone missed the point, the last of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

That was every bit as revolutionary as the French sending King Louis XVI to the guillotine or the Bolsheviks shooting Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family in a basement.  But what’s more, unlike those other two revolutions, the American Constitution didn’t result in rivers of blood and a collapse of society.  On the contrary, it set the American experiment on its slow but methodical march to revolutionize the world and unleash the potential of man.

The American experiment worked… for almost 200 years.  Of course it didn’t work perfectly for everyone all the time, nor for some people any of the time, but for the overwhelming majority of people who have lived in the United States over the course of its existence, life has been better here than almost any other place on Earth.

But that experiment is in the process of collapsing. Why?  Simple.  Because the nation that was birthed with a constitution specifically geared towards limiting government power has metastasized into a nation where the government controls virtually everything.

Today it’s almost impossible for a person to get out of bed and go through a normal day without out violating one or more laws.  Just the federal government alone, which was the government the Constitution sought to control the most, today has so many laws that it itself can’t tell you how many there are. Justice Gorsuch estimates as many as 300,000.  To his credit, President Trump sees the problem.

But that is just one part of the problem.  Another, even more dire, is playing itself out on our X accounts and on TV right in front of us – except obviously, the MSM…  I’m of course talking about the criminal enterprise that is known as what seems like the entire Somali population in America. It appears that Somalians in America have stolen almost as much money from American taxpayers as the entire GDP of Somalia itself.

This of course comes mere months after we saw DOGE discover the USAID / NGO grift machine documenting tens of billions of taxpayer dollars going to fund countless leftist programs.  Not surprisingly, both involve Democrats… but that’s an issue for another day.

As enraging as all of this is, these treacheries are just a drop in the bucket of where America has gone off her Constitutional rails. One need to look no farther than the federal budget to understand it. Today, 70% of federal spending goes to things that did not exist when the Constitution was written.

And we’re not talking about air traffic control towers or NASA.  No, these are programs where government basically takes taxpayer’s money and gives it to someone else. And what would those things be? Social Security, Health, Medicare, Education & Income security. (While SS is not redistribution, it is money the government demands and then controls the distribution of.) That’s fully 70% of federal funding, clocking in at a cool $4.4 trillion. A century before, domestic spending – at that time usually on roads and farm subsidies – made up less than 13% of the federal budget.  Another way of looking at this is that in 1821 federal spending made up 2.5% of America’s total GDP while today it’s in excess of 23%.

The fraud in Minnesota and via USAID are merely the most blatant examples of a system that has gone rouge.  Half of American households pay essentially no income taxes while 100 million Americans receive some sort of government assistance.  And the icing on the cake is that we’re not even spending our own money, we’re borrowing to do so, and today the national debt stands  at 100% of GDP and unfunded mandates at twice that.

Between the stultifying regulations, the income redistribution and the rampant, government sanctioned fraud dressed up like social programs, Americans have betrayed their birthright.

America became the most powerful and consequential nation in human history specifically because of her explicitly limited government. For a period of almost 200 years she stood as a beacon of freedom and hope and opportunity.

To the outside world that illusion of greatness may remain, but the reality is, much like the French Ancien régime before the revolution, there is a cancer at its core. And that cancer is government.  Not government per se, but rather an out-of-control government that regulates too much, spends too much and controls too much.  Our government has become a leviathan in every manner possible and its tentacles and largesse have undercut the foundation upon which the nation was founded.

With the Democrat party’s Stalinist leanings and Stasi like practices getting too difficult for free men to tolerate, the election of Donald Trump was a requisite for averting a real revolution. But it’s not sufficient.  The America that changed the world for the better, that unleashed a level of human achievement unlike any other cannot survive as a borg, which is exactly what it has become.

If Donald Trump and the mostly useless GOP Congress really want to actually make America great again, starting in 2026 they will turn their metaphorical guns and scalpels on the government itself and begin to bring back the primary idea that made America great in the first place:  Limited government. Without that, everything else is little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and the outcome will be the same.

It is not my usual fare. I typically summarize books that expose institutional capture, medical corruption, or the mechanisms by which official narratives diverge from observable reality. Atlas Shrugged is not that kind of book. It is a novel—a thousand-page philosophical novel published in 1957 about railroads and steel mills and a mysterious man who stops the motor of the world. It came up recently in conversation with a close friend, and I realized that despite its enormous cultural footprint, almost no one I know has actually read it. They know the name Ayn Rand. They have opinions about her. But they have not sat with the book itself.

This matters because Atlas Shrugged is one of the most influential novels of the twentieth century, particularly in American political and economic thought. Alan Greenspan was a member of Rand’s inner circle. Silicon Valley founders cite her as formative. The book has sold more than ten million copies and consistently ranks in surveys as one of the most impactful books Americans have ever read. Yet the ratio of people who have opinions about Rand to people who have actually finished her major work is probably a hundred to one. The ratio of people who could accurately explain Objectivism—the philosophy the novel dramatizes—is smaller still. Most criticism of Rand attacks positions she did not hold, and most praise defends positions she would not recognize.

So I thought I would make a contribution to that deficit. What follows is not literary criticism or political endorsement. It is an attempt to lay out clearly what the book actually says—its characters, its plot, its philosophical arguments—so that anyone who wants to engage with these ideas can do so from a position of knowledge rather than secondhand caricature. Rand’s conclusions may be right or wrong, but they deserve to be understood before they are judged. This is my attempt at that understanding.

With thanks to Ayn Rand.

U.S. — With the fall of the Ayatollah regime appearing to be imminent, prominent Democrats expressed fear that the dangerous Iranian desire for freedom could potentially spread to the United States.

Leaders of the Democratic Party stressed that the desire to be free from oppression could pose a serious threat to the American way of life and urged everyone to ignore what has been happening in Iran to prevent it from happening here.

“This type of thinking is contagious,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “I wept when I turned on the news and saw what was happening in Tehran. It’s frightening. I’m afraid of something similar happening here in our country. This desire for freedom and liberty could really destroy everything the Democratic Party has worked so hard for so long to build in America.”

If the movement continues to spread unchecked, Democrats said, it could make it more difficult to maintain the oppressive hold the federal government has on the American people. “If the Ayatollah can be overthrown, there’s no telling what could happen to us,” said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. “Watching the Iranian people protesting to be free is a sobering lesson that we all must learn to keep it from spreading like a virus. Today, it’s Tehran. Tomorrow, it could be New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago. We have to avoid this desire for freedom and keep it from taking hold in the U.S.”

At publishing time, Democrats had reportedly called a closed-door meeting to address the danger of Americans rising up to stage a revolution to win their freedom

The Babylon Bee

Contrary to what non-Deadheads might expect, conservatives across the country were saddened last Saturday to hear of the death of Bob Weir, Grateful Dead rhythm guitarist and the cute, preppie one.

Although a psychedelic, tie-dyed rock band out of Haight-Ashbury doesn’t seem synonymous with right-wing sensibilities, it was—a lot more than people probably think.

The Grateful Dead was supremely American. No other nation on earth could have produced music like this, a synthesis of blues, R&B, country, folk, rock, even a little jazz. Nowhere else would a band origin story be the following: The 16-year-old Weir and friends were bumming around Palo Alto on New Year’s Eve 1963, heard the sound of a banjo, and followed it to a music store where they happened upon Jerry Garcia waiting for his banjo students to show up. They never did, so Bobby and his friends picked up some instruments and played jug music with Jerry into the night. It was so much fun, Jerry and Bobby decided to form a band called Mother McCree’s Uptown Jug Champions, which became the Warlocks, and then the Grateful Dead.

Find that in Japan—find it in England.

Bobby himself was deeply American, a lover of cowboy culture. In fact, before meeting Jerry, he had worked as a ranch hand in Wyoming. Fortuitously, he spent his evenings in the bunkhouse with the old horsemen, playing guitar as they sang songs. Several of his own songs for the Dead, like “Jack Straw,” and “Mexicali Blues,” told cowboy stories, as did some of his staple covers, like Merle Haggard’s “Mama Tried” and John Phillips’s “Me and My Uncle.”

The band was wildly individualistic and self-reliant. Long before the internet ended music studios’ role as gatekeepers, able to make or break musical careers, the Dead were off on their own, giving their music away and making money almost exclusively through their concerts—unheard of at the time. In their prime, they were among the highest-grossing band in the world.

The Dead’s stalwart fans would go to an entire run of shows in one town. Every night was different. Hardcore Deadheads followed the band from town to town, either as “trustafarians,” or supporting themselves by selling copyright-violating t-shirts (Memorex ad: “Is it live or is it Dead,” “Absolut Dead,” “Phils’ Bass Rippin’”), candles, jewelry, and frightening-looking “veggie burritos.”

Special tickets were available for a “tapers” section, allowing audiophiles to record the concerts from the floor, then give the tapes away. It was all about the concerts.

(While we’re on how creative Deadheads were, the “-head” thing is ours. Phish-heads (Phish), Parrot-heads (Jimmy Buffett), Crue-heads (Motley Crue), Diamondheads (Neil Diamond)—get your own names.)

Deadheads’ obsessive attention to detail is reminiscent of Talmudic scholars. The Deadbase, an encyclopedic set list of every Dead concert, minutely recorded how often a song was played first, last, preceding and following intermission; the first song after “Space”—i.e. rambling atonal sounds, or “time to get a beer for non-drug-takers”—which songs were played in which city, state, country, and venue. All this was compiled by the fans. Once only available in telephone book-sized volumes, now the database is available on the Internet.

You can find out, for example, that Weir was the lead singer on about a third of their songs, including the band’s first and second most performed songs, “Me and My Uncle” and “Sugar Magnolia.”

One oddity was the band’s ludicrously detailed instructions for ordering concert tickets by mail—requests had to be sent in a #10 envelope, holding a 3”x5” card with your name, address, phone number, plus the show requested and number of tickets; a money order for the precise amount; and a return envelope (also #10!), stamped and self-addressed. Finally, the envelope had to be postmarked on the day tickets became available. Failure to comply with any of these instructions would lead to rejection.

You’d imagine such exacting instructions for tickets to a gene-splicing seminar, not a rock band associated with psychedelics.

Deadheads’ Asperger’s-like characteristics would not be surprising to Critical Race Theory devotees, who claim characteristics like independence, self-reliance, hard work, and linear thinking are markers of “white supremacy.” It is at least true that, outside of a ski lodge hosting a croquet convention, you would be hard pressed to find so many white people in one place as at a Dead show. There was little else to distinguish them: college students, doctors, lawyers, politicians, hippies, and preppies—all well represented at Dead shows.

The fans were also eminently polite and conflict-averse—other supposed markers of white supremacy! When a “Greenpeace” sign flashed before a Dead show at RFK stadium once, some in my crowd booed. It was for our own amusement, but the people in front of us asked why they’d booed, purely out of curiosity. My friend explained, saying nuclear power was the cleanest energy and Greenpeace was against it. They listened attentively and said something like, “Cool, man,” then offered him a hit off a joint.

Unfortunately, the band did get a little political after Jerry died, holding concerts for Obama in 2008. Based on his own statements, it’s hard to believe Jerry would have gone along with this. He called the politics of the ’60s “lame,” saying it was the spirit of the time that was the important thing, and criticized bands like Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young for bringing politics into music.

Appropriately, Jerry’s last words to Bobby came as they were leaving what would be their final performance, on July 9, 1995, at Soldier Field. Jerry slapped Bobby on the back and said, “Always a hoot.”

Ann Coulter, American Conservative

by Karl Vic and Kay Armin Serjoie

Fears are growing that the number of protesters killed by Iranian security forces now reaches into the thousands. Despite an internet blackout, cell phone footage has emerged of truck-mounted machine guns strafing residential streets, hospitals swamped by shooting victims, and a morgue overwhelmed by hundreds of bodies after only the first night of assaults.

To account for what it called a “significant” death toll, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Sunday raised the specter of ISIS, claiming in a statement that slain protesters were terrorists hired by Israel and the U.S. Two days earlier, a Guard official on state-controlled television had warned that anyone venturing into the street should be prepared to “take a bullet.”

No precise death toll can be ascertained. Tallies offered by respected human rights groups have climbed into the hundreds, but those organizations count only bodies that have been identified, painstaking work made difficult by a communications blackout that extends to cell phones and even land lines.

However, starting with reports from a handful of Tehran hospitals, an informal, expatriate group of academics and professionals calculated that protester deaths could have reached 6,000 through Saturday. The calculation does not include bodies carried by authorities not to hospitals but directly to morgues—such as the hundreds lain on the floors and parking lot of the Kahrizak Forensic Center, outside the capital. According to a social media post, the scene shows only bodies killed on Thursday night.

No precise death toll can be ascertained. Tallies offered by respected human rights groups have climbed into the hundreds, but those organizations count only bodies that have been identified, painstaking work made difficult by a communications blackout that extends to cell phones and even land lines.

However, starting with reports from a handful of Tehran hospitals, an informal, expatriate group of academics and professionals calculated that protester deaths could have reached 6,000 through Saturday. The calculation does not include bodies carried by authorities not to hospitals but directly to morgues—such as the hundreds lain on the floors and parking lot of the Kahrizak Forensic Center, outside the capital. According to a social media post, the scene shows only bodies killed on Thursday night.

by 

Karl Vick

 and 

Kay Armin Serjoie

Fears are growing that the number of protesters killed by Iranian security forces now reaches into the thousands. Despite an internet blackout, cell phone footage has emerged of truck-mounted machine guns strafing residential streets, hospitals swamped by shooting victims, and a morgue overwhelmed by hundreds of bodies after only the first night of assaults.

To account for what it called a “significant” death toll, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Sunday raised the specter of ISIS, claiming in a statement that slain protesters were terrorists hired by Israel and the U.S. Two days earlier, a Guard official on state-controlled television had warned that anyone venturing into the street should be prepared to “take a bullet.”

null

Read More: Iran Is ‘Prepared for War, But Ready to Negotiate’ as Trump Considers ‘Strong Options’ for Intervention

No precise death toll can be ascertained. Tallies offered by respected human rights groups have climbed into the hundreds, but those organizations count only bodies that have been identified, painstaking work made difficult by a communications blackout that extends to cell phones and even land lines.

However, starting with reports from a handful of Tehran hospitals, an informal, expatriate group of academics and professionals calculated that protester deaths could have reached 6,000 through Saturday. The calculation does not include bodies carried by authorities not to hospitals but directly to morgues—such as the hundreds lain on the floors and parking lot of the Kahrizak Forensic Center, outside the capital. According to a social media post, the scene shows only bodies killed on Thursday night.

The scale of the killing appeared to dwarf anything previously seen on the streets of Iran. In one city in Isfahan province, Nafjabad, the death toll was 35 for Thursday night alone. And the protests have reached all 31 provinces of Iran, a nation of 90 million people with 100 cities with a population above 100,000.

“I’m in Shiraz,” a protester told TIME in the wee hours of Sunday from the city of 1.7 million in the country’s southwest. Asking to go by “Lewis” for his own protection, he spoke via Google Meet on Starlink, the satellite internet network that is illegal in Iran for its ability to defy shutdowns. Ahmad Ahmadian, a U.S.-based activist involved in smuggling the dishes into Iran, said at least 50,000 Starlink uplinks are there, though many may not be operating because of subscription fees. (Unlike in Ukraine and Venezuela, owner Elon Musk has not made Starlink free in Iran.)

The protests began in Tehran’s central bazaar on Dec. 28, after the collapse of the national currency sent the economy into freefall. But in Shiraz people went into the streets a week later, Lewis said, prompted by a call from Reza Pahlavi, the U.S.-based son of Iran’s former shah, or king. They were unlike previous demonstrations.

“Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out”—David Horowitz

The Same Leftists Outraged Over Renee Good, Didn’t Care About Justine Damond

Justine was shot by a Somali. Renee was shot interfering with Somali ICE raids.

Newsletter

Long before Renee Good drove her 4,000 lb SUV at an armed law enforcement officer, Minneapolis made headlines nationwide for the shooting of another woman by a ‘law enforcement officer.’

Justine Damond was shot and killed by Mohammed Noor, a Somali acting as a Minneapolis police officer,  Damond had called to report a woman being assaulted. When she approached the police vehicle, the armed Somali opened fire on the unarmed woman. Noor claimed that he felt threatened by Damond, who was on foot and just trying to tell the officers what she saw.

The Minneapolis police department tried to cover up the murder by Mohammed Noor, claiming that she had slapped the back of the police car. Not only was it never explained how this was a threat, but her fingerprints were not found on the vehicle.

After the killing, then Mayor Betsy Hodges issued a statement, not to the murdered woman’s family, but to the “Somali community”.

“To the Somali community: I want you to know that you are a valued and appreciated part of Minneapolis. I stand with you and support you. The strength and beauty of the Somali and East African communities are a vital part of what makes Minneapolis so strong and beautiful. I am grateful to be your neighbor.

“This week a Somali police officer, Officer Mohamed Noor, shot and killed a woman under circumstances we don’t yet comprehend… Justine’s death is a tragedy for our city. We cannot compound that tragedy by turning to racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia.”

Betsy Hodges is currently ranting and raving about Good’s death on her Facebook. “Trump taking over the investigation serves many purposes: creating a fictional narrative for Renee Good’s death, creating a fictional narrative to support increased use of violence domestically, trying to make us doubt our own eyes, and fanning the flames of division. Yes, it’s a cover-up.”

Justine was shot by a Somali empowered by Minneapolis politicians. Renee was shot interfering with ICE raids rounding up Somali illegal alien criminals.

Justine was reporting a crime. Renee was committing one.

Justine was unarmed. Renee was driving a 4,000 lb lethal weapon.

Daniel Greenfield

Managers across industries are terminating Generation Z employees at a pace that is starting to reshape early career norms. Instead of the traditional multi‑year ramp, many Gen Z hires are being cut within months, as supervisors point to recurring behavior patterns and a widening gap between expectations on both sides. The trend is forcing companies, and young workers, to confront what is really driving these rapid exits and how much of the problem lies with individual conduct versus outdated systems.

At the center of the tension is a perception that Gen Z brings fresh energy but also a different relationship to authority, feedback, and work itself. Managers describe a cohort that is highly vocal about values and boundaries, while leaders still measure performance through reliability, initiative, and communication. The collision between those standards is where jobs are being lost fastest.

Managers say the basics are breaking down

When I talk to managers about why they are cutting Gen Z so quickly, they almost always start with fundamentals: showing up, following through, and reading the room. Surveys cited by workplace commentators describe bosses who believe Bosses Are Firing because of what they see as low initiative and a reluctance to go beyond the bare minimum. In one breakdown of early terminations, lack of motivation was identified as the number one reason young employees lose their roles, with managers saying this group rarely shows extra effort or ownership once the onboarding period ends.

That frustration shows up in more granular lists of complaints. A detailed rundown of Reasons Bosses Are highlights patterns like chronic lateness, ignoring dress codes, and what supervisors interpret as disrespectful tone in emails or chat. Another gallery of employer feedback notes that a perceived lack of motivation sits at the top of the list, followed closely by poor communication and difficulty accepting feedback. From the managerial vantage point, these are not abstract generational quirks but concrete behaviors that make it hard to trust someone with clients, deadlines, or confidential work.

Why managers are burning out on Gen Z

The strain is not only on young workers. A growing share of supervisors say the dynamic with Gen Z is wearing them down to the point that they are questioning their own careers. One survey of U.S. leaders found that 18 percent have considered quitting because of the stress of managing younger staff, and 27 percent said they would prefer not to hire Gen at all. Another report on workplace pressure noted that About 18 percent of managers had thought about leaving their roles because of the tension they feel when trying to coach this youngest cohort.

Those same surveys describe a pattern in which supervisors feel they must constantly explain basic expectations, while younger employees expect rapid advancement and highly personalized feedback. A widely shared analysis of Fair reasons managers fire Gen Z fast, from their point of view, emphasizes that leaders see repeatable, fixable patterns rather than one‑off mistakes. For supervisors already stretched by hybrid schedules and lean staffing, the prospect of investing months of coaching into a new hire who may not stay long feels like a bad bet, which makes them quicker to cut ties at the first sign of misalignment.

The behaviors behind the pink slips

When I drill into what actually triggers a termination, the same themes surface again and again: communication breakdowns, resistance to hierarchy, and misjudged professionalism. One corporate training analysis found that communication issues accounted for 39 percent of the problems managers cited with young staff, alongside difficulty adapting to company culture and challenges with time management, in a review of why Why Gen professionals are getting fired. Another breakdown of employer complaints describes how Gen Are Constantly Getting Fired in part because They Refuse To Idolize Their Boss, push for salary transparency, and openly question decisions, behavior that older leaders sometimes interpret as insubordination rather than candor.

There is also a growing body of anecdotal evidence about unprofessional conduct that would have been unthinkable in earlier eras. A viral commentary from a millennial observer described how Companies are firing Gen Z left and right for chronic lateness, ignoring basic instructions, and using inappropriate language in the workplace, while insisting that kindness and accountability remain non‑negotiable. Ethics specialists have echoed that concern, noting that Generation Z employees are being fired at alarming rates, with 14 percent of managers reporting that only a small fraction of their youngest workers consistently meet expectations around professionalism. In that light, the pink slips are less about abstract generational clashes and more about specific, repeated missteps that erode trust.

System failures and the “fast‑track firing” machine

It would be a mistake, though, to frame this solely as a story of entitled twenty‑somethings. Structural choices by employers are also accelerating the churn. Analysts who study early career pipelines point out that companies are firing because they are dissatisfied with how quickly these workers adapt, and some firms are already considering avoiding Generation Z hires altogether. A separate workplace review argues that Many Gen employees are being cut shortly after they start not only because of their behavior but also due to outdated systems, poor onboarding, and a lack of clear expectations, with one in six managers saying they are considering leaving their roles because of the strain.

Career specialists who track Generation Z’s Career Challenges note that this cohort entered the workforce through disrupted schooling, remote internships, and a volatile job market, which left gaps in soft skills that employers once assumed would be in place. Commentators on the future of management argue that traditional hierarchies are wobbling as End Of Management narrative collides with Gen Faces New Challenges In 2025, including flatter teams and algorithmic oversight. In that environment, it is easier for companies to treat young workers as disposable, cycling through short stints rather than investing in the kind of mentoring that once turned rough edges into long‑term loyalty.

Bridging the gap instead of defaulting to the exit

For all the tension, there is also a path forward that does not rely on constant firing. Advocates for younger workers argue that what looks like defiance is often a refusal to accept outdated gatekeeping. One widely shared reflection framed the backlash as Literally generational gatekeeping, asking What is really happening when older employees say “I suffered through this, so you should too.” That perspective casts Gen Z’s insistence on boundaries and meaningful work as a corrective, not a flaw, and suggests that employers who learn to harness that boldness could see higher engagement and innovation.

On the employer side, specialists in youth employment stress that context matters. Analysts who study how Several external factors have shaped Gen Z’s unique perspectives and behaviors point to economic instability, social media, and the pandemic as forces that rewired expectations around work. Training experts argue that employing Employing Gen professionals brings fresh energy and digital fluency, and that targeted coaching on communication, problem solving, and accountability can turn what is now a business challenge into an opportunity. If managers can move from reflexive frustration to structured support, and if young workers can meet them halfway on reliability and respect, the current wave of fast firings does not have to define an entire generation’s career start.

Silas Redmond, The Daily Overview

Leftist: “ICE is evil. An ICE officer murdered an innocent civilian woman in Minneapolis.”

“Wasn’t the woman you call innocent trying to run over the ICE officer?”

“No matter. ICE has no right to be there.”

“Why? The city and state are deliberately and openly letting illegals into the country. The mayor and Governor are breaking immigration laws.”

“There shouldn’t be immigration laws. We should have no borders.”

“But what about enemies of America? Terrorists? Violent felons being dumped here by other countries?”

“Only a racist would suggest such a thing.”

“What about January 6? If it was wrong for people to enter or even go near the Capitol in protest, isn’t it at least as wrong to try and run over law enforcement? Why does law and order matter in one case and not another?”

“The victim was a lesbian! What kind of homophobe white supremacist are you?”

“What does the gender of one’s sexual partner have to do with the issue? Who said anything about race?”

“Governor Walz is moral. President Trump is evil.”

“How is refusing to enforce federal laws moral, especially when that refusal endangers people? And why was Biden permitted to censor, fire or threaten people who disobeyed his vax mandates while President Trump may not enforce existing laws? Why were opponents of Biden enemies of democracy, while opponents of Trump are virtuous, courageous and right, even when initiating violence?”

“Racist scum!”

You cannot argue with irrationality of this kind. You cannot have discussions with people who think with their emotions–which is to say, PEOPLE WHO DO NOT THINK AT ALL. It’s beneath yourself, and beneath reason. Better to support the right people, the President Trumps and others, and arm yourself for whatever might come next, because law enforcement itself is now in trouble. And get the hell out of places like Minneapolis, or any of the blue cities. When possible and desirable, leave blue states. Let them fall — as they will, and must.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason