It was the second time the Ninth Circuit — despite its reputation as a liberal bastion — overruled lower courts and allowed Trump to exercise his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief; the first case was California.

National Public Radio reported:

A divided federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit today overturned a temporary restraining order put in place by a federal judge in Portland – removing the legal impediment that was preventing the Trump Administration from sending National Guard troops to Portland.

“After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,’” the majority wrote in their decision.

…

On Oct. 16, a federal appeals court upheld an earlier district court ruling in Illinois, temporarily blocking the president’s federalization and deployment of the National Guard deployment there. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

Much had been made, earlier, of the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a first-term Trump appointee, to block the deployment. Liberal commentators relished in her grandiose declaration: “This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.” The Ninth Circuit has since decided: it is, indeed, a nation of constitutional law, but not of rule by judges against law and order, or over the Constitution itself.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that President Donald Trump has the authority to deploy the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, reversing a decision by a district judge earlier this month.

It was the second time the Ninth Circuit — despite its reputation as a liberal bastion — overruled lower courts and allowed Trump to exercise his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief; the first case was California.

National Public Radio reported:

A divided federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit today overturned a temporary restraining order put in place by a federal judge in Portland – removing the legal impediment that was preventing the Trump Administration from sending National Guard troops to Portland.

“After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,’” the majority wrote in their decision.

…

On Oct. 16, a federal appeals court upheld an earlier district court ruling in Illinois, temporarily blocking the president’s federalization and deployment of the National Guard deployment there. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

Much had been made, earlier, of the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a first-term Trump appointee, to block the deployment. Liberal commentators relished in her grandiose declaration: “This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.” The Ninth Circuit has since decided: it is, indeed, a nation of constitutional law, but not of rule by judges against law and order, or over the Constitution itself.

Joel B. Pollak, Breitbart

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cited the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to support her contention that “gerrymandering congressional districts to ensure that there are more majority Black districts is constitutional. Mental ability statistics show that, as a race, Blacks have a lower IQ than any other race. The only way they can be fairly represented in Congress is if they can have districts where their mental disability is out-weighed by greater numbers of Black voters.”

Chief Justice John Roberts said “I have long held that the only way to end racial discrimination is to stop using race as a factor in determining a person’s rights in our society. The notion that every race should be equally represented in every school, profession, or activity is preposterous. Aptitudes and abilities are not equally distributed among humans. Using racial quotas to decide university admissions, job placements, or congressional districts violates the principle of treating each person equally. All must be free to choose their own course without anyone putting their thumb on the scale.”

Jackson countered saying “we already put a ‘thumb on the scale’ when our laws decree preferred parking spots and access ramps for the physically disabled. Why shouldn’t we put our thumb on the scale for the mentally disabled so there voices can be heard in Congress?”

Justice Clarence Thomas argued against racism, saying “I think my own life story makes the case that race may not be as decisive a determiner of our fate as Justice Jackson contends. It is one thing to ensure that opportunities are open to all comers to make the best of themselves. Would-be benefactors may choose to lend a hand, but the process should not be rigged to ensure that the incapable are saddled with responsibilities they cannot handle. Their inevitable failure does not well serve society or the misplaced person.”

John Semmens

The Democrats have named their price to end the government shutdown — an additional $350 billion for health care over the next decade. Critics say a big chunk of that money may go to ghosts.

At issue are the generous subsidies the Biden administration created for Affordable Care Act policies, sweeteners that are slated to expire in December. Making health care essentially free for millions of Americans, those policies have sent enrollment in Obamacare plans skyrocketing. But a recent study found they have also sparked a curious phenomenon: an estimated 12 million enrollees “without a single claim — no doctor visit, lab test, or prescription filled” in 2024.

The Paragon Health Institute study reports that this is triple the number of no-claim policyholders before the Biden sweeteners were put in place.

“Among those now eligible for zero-premium plans with low or no deductible,” the study found, “that number increased nearly sevenfold. … A whopping 40% of enrollees in fully subsidized plans had no claims in 2024. In 2024 alone, taxpayers sent at least $35 billion to insurers for people who paid no premiums and never used their plan,” the report said.

Although many analysts suspect that these numbers suggest widespread fraud, Democrats and the insurance industry argue that they reflect consumers taking advantage of affordable coverage. They warn that the expiration of Biden-era reforms will make policies far more expensive for more than 20 million Americans.

“If Congress fails to extend the health care tax credits, millions of Americans will face immediate and severe premium increases, leading many to forgo coverage altogether,” said Chris Bond, a spokesman for AHIP, the lobbying arm of the health insurance industry. “Congress must act as quickly as possible to protect Americans from this affordability crisis.”

As Democrats have made health care their line in the sand on the government shutdown, Biden-era expansions of Obamacare are receiving new attention as a symbol of both expanding access to health care and of spending run amok.

Critics say they underscore the findings of the Department of Government Efficiency, which has highlighted a lack of accountability in massive government spending programs at a time when the federal government is struggling to corral massive deficits and debt. They say the Biden sweeteners also illustrate how and why government spending keeps increasing: Once a subsidy is put in place, it is hard to take it away from voters.

Swollen rolls

The Obamacare expansion at issue came about through legislation and regulations during Biden’s term and was often cast as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. First, the scope of who was eligible for subsidies was broadened to households with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty line — making a family of four earning up to $160,000 eligible for subsidized plans. Also, increased subsidies made Obamacare free for those with incomes between 100% and 150% of the poverty line, and longer enrollment periods were introduced.

The cost for this, on the other hand, is borne by taxpayers.

“Biden’s COVID credits didn’t reduce health care costs — they just shifted them to taxpayers while padding insurer and enrollment intermediary profits,” Paragon President Brian Blase said.

Like all gigantic markets and massive government programs, the Affordable Care Act and what people pay each month have become a very complicated thing, varying by age, state, plan level, and other factors. But the figures for the Obamacare “reference plan” (silver level) reveal what has happened since the COVID pandemic.

In 2021, when Biden was inaugurated, the basic plan cost an individual $27 a month if reported income was at or below the federal poverty line, which stood at around $14,500 a year. For those making 50% more, the “reference plan” cost $75 a month, and so on up to $152 a month for someone making more than $30,000. Those monthly payment figures were constant regardless of what the insurers charged, with taxpayers making up the difference.

Through legislation Biden pushed through by narrow majorities or via reconciliation, the amount someone would pay each month in the first two categories dropped to zero. And as Obamacare became essentially free, millions signed up — enrolling at rates the plan had never seen since its inception in 2013.

The overall figures reflect this explosion. Between 2016 and 2020, an average of 8.5 million people signed up for a subsidized Obamacare policy each year, and in none of those years did the figure equal 9 million, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

In 2021, however, the subsidized total topped 10 million, and by 2024 it had nearly doubled to 19.5 million, CMS figures show.

“It’s all counterintuitive that when enrollment isn’t being publicized, no one is out beating the bushes to get people enrolled like we had in the early years of Obamacare,” said Ed Haislmaier, a health care expert at the Heritage Foundation. “Amazing that a product’s sales would go through the roof when nobody was talking about it.”

Some analysts believe the numbers indicate rampant fraud. Blase claimed in a letter to the Wall Street Journal that the expansion has created an explosion of phantom patients — including 6.4 million of them so far in 2025. “The problem isn’t real people with coverage they don’t use — it’s fraudulent sign-ups who never should have been subsidized,” he wrote.

Haislmaier agreed. “We don’t have an exact number for how many people might be fake. I don’t think anyone does,” he said. “What we do have is a lot of circumstantial evidence, a lot of data points, and a lot of information about how the markets have always operated to suggest there is massive fraud here.”

We’re sending billions of dollars to insurance companies for policies that people are unaware they’re enrolled in and do not use,” he posted.

On the other side are Democrats who make strange political bedfellows of the insurance industry. Some who traditionally oppose big business, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), insist these recent subsidies must continue, preferably permanently. For them, Obamacare more than doubling — from 11.4 million to more than 24 million between 2020 and today — is a success sign of government-run health care.

Warren compared ending the subsidies to taking health care away from people.

“Still waiting to find out how Trump and Republicans think cutting health insurance for 15 million Americans makes America healthy again,” she posted on Sept. 15.

Polls suggest support for government-subsidized health care is a partisan issue. Last November, Gallup reported that “90% of Democrats say that the federal government is responsible for American health care coverage, while 65% of Independents hold the same view. Although only 32% of Republicans share that opinion.” Another survey found that among those receiving subsidies, people who voted for Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than two to one.

Insurers say the Paragon study was flawed and accused the think tank of misunderstanding how insurance works. It’s not unusual for homeowners or car insurance policyholders to go years without filing a claim, and the same could be true with health care, they say. According to the industry and Democrats, the ballooning numbers reflect a thriving market in which many more Americans are enjoying health care coverage, as stated in a rebuttal released by AHIP in August.

Republicans want to let the subsidies expire. Democrats want to make them permanent.

Of course, that leaves some wiggle room, such as extending the subsidies for another year or some set period of time, a kicking-the-can option long favored by Congress.

Whatever the outcome, large subsidies that have always been part of Obamacare will continue. For all the hue and cry about rising costs, the elimination of Biden-era sweeteners would simply return the system to the way it was operating before 2021, Kalisz said.

“It’s crony math, a kind of corporate welfare,” she told RealClearInvestigations. “Why are the insurers now making it seem like all the subsidies are going away? It’s a form of scaring and spooking the public.”

James Varney, The Blaze

Hamas is an irredeemable terrorist cartel that subverts Gaza, uses civilians as shields, and must be dismantled and barred from power before any genuine peace can begin.

Hamas was born and exists to kill Jews, seek the destruction of Israel, and, to some extent, overthrow or subvert pro-Western Arab governments. Period.

Hamas was willing to execute its Palestinian Authority rivals, cancel all elections after its first and only victory, hold kangaroo death courts to murder dissidents, and steal hundreds of billions of dollars in Western and international relief. It has already violated the ceasefire, attacking and killing Israelis, and now claims it has “lost” the remains of Israeli hostages, whom it likely murdered (and thus does not want more physical evidence of their barbarity).

For those ends, it diverted billions of dollars from the people of Gaza to build a vast subterranean labyrinth of military headquarters and arsenals. It expropriated hospitals, mosques, and schools for use as tunnel entries and exits, using expendable civilian shields to protect its rich terrorist hierarchy. Hamas always counted on plenty of collateral damage to sway the Western left to become active enablers of its murderous causes—in a way, it is also stone silent on other “occupied land” and “refugees,” from the recent ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan and Nigeria to the long-standing illegal occupations of Northern Cyprus and swaths of the Congo.

Hamas will never give up power, despite the fact that its ruling elite is all but wiped out, thousands of its foot soldiers are dead, and it is now loathed by most nations of the Middle East. The subtext of every negotiation over the future of Gaza is that almost every Arab regime privately wants the U.S. or Israel to eliminate Hamas. It is likely more popular at American college campuses. 

One, anyone with Hamas ties, formal or informal, should be prohibited from entering the U.S. and the EU and their Western allies.

Two, because Hamas has already been branded a terrorist organization for the past 28 years, U.S. campuses should finally be warned that student participation in pro-terrorist demonstrations championing Hamas would be equivalent to rapid expulsion. Businesses, NGOs, and fronts that empower Hamas should be warned that they will be debanked, fined, and prosecuted. In the West, Hamas should be further rebranded as a pariah no different from ISIS.

Three, no sanctions should be lifted from Iran until the end of its nuclear program is verified, and it ceases all funding of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. The quickest way for the bankrupt theocracy to implode is to keep it under sanctions and embargoes while it shorts its own people in stealthy attempts to fund its terrorist tentacles—a suicidal trajectory that alone might lead the Iranian street or military to turn on the theocracy.

There are three entities who bear the responsibility to end Hamas under the new peace accords: the moderate Arab regimes of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, and perhaps Turkey, along with the U.S. and Israel. All of them wish Hamas to vanish as much as they fear doing so themselves. So while it is far-fetched that the three forces would act in concert to finish off Hamas, it is incumbent upon them not to prevent any of the others from crushing Hamas at its first sign of regrouping to doom the peace.

In practical terms, that reality likely means that Israel must finish off Hamas, with full U.S. support—and tacit Arab acquiescence. But key to the present ceasefire and possible peace is a comprehensive plan to anticipate Hamas’s return to terrorism.

Hamas’s entire underground complex must be destroyed as a prerequisite for any rebuilding of Gaza. The tunnels should be blown up, collapsed, and filled with the rubble of the war Hamas precipitated.

Victor Davis Hanson

Like many Americans, I watched with interest as the “No Kings” spectacle unfolded. It was rather like a box of Monty Python’s chocolates. I had no idea what I was going to get, but I was pretty sure I wasn’t going to like it much. In this, at least, I was not disappointed.

So, what, exactly, did this crunchy frog of a “No Kings” thing accomplish? We haven’t had any kings since the day we declared our independence. And before I had my coffee made this morning, I was deeply concerned, so I checked. Turns out, we still don’t. So, apparently, the protests were quite successful in helping us dodge the bullet. (Well, we still have Stephen King, but, undesirable as that may be, let’s not worry about that, at least for now.)

From the after-action reports that I’m seeing from around the country, indications are that, for the most part, grayer heads prevailed among the protesters to the tune of 80% or 90% in some cities. Based on appearances, the protest organizers must have raided every bingo hall they could find in every reliably leftist city in the country. (That might explain the one group shuffling around the Colorado state capitol that was reportedly chanting, “B27.”)  I suppose many viewed it as a last fling for the Woodstock generation. 

Eric Florack, PJ Media

Leftist Democrats are not against tyranny. They are against the loss of their own power to rule over others. They do not want individual rights; they want despotism where THEY control schools, media, culture and the outcome of elections. They want one-Party rule–their Party. Notice how their protests do not call for a Constitutional Bill of Rights. They do not call for private property, free markets, low taxes, free speech, freedom of worship, the right to bear arms or freedom of choice in health care and education. They call for complete control over every single area of our lives. Worse than most kings, leftists demand totalitarian dictatorship. They falsely portray President Trump as a monarch while offering us a fusion of Hitler, Sharia Law and Stalin as their alternative. It’s a spectacular display of ignorance and arrogance to watch these fools scream for freedom while (whenever in power) practicing its complete annihilation.

How pitiful to be so lacking in principles, ideology, any kind of practical program (other than Communism), or lacking any inspirational idea, slogan or leader that all you can come up with is: “No Kings.” Of course, if an entire multi-billion dollar industry we still reverently label “journalism” drools and fawns over you like you’re the greatest geniuses in the history of the galaxy, I suppose you might think you’re on to something big.

Poor ignorant little totalitarians. They think they are so enlightened, sophisticated and smart–and they desperately hope everyone watching them thinks so, too. They are the architects of their own destruction–and our own, if we don’t keep fighting their petty little emotions which they mistake for principles.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Did you hear that we marched against “kings” this weekend? Yes, who knows how many reminded us that they hate kings, dictators, authoritarians, and anything that rhymes with Trump. Yes, anything that rhymes with Trump.

At the same time, please forgive some of us if we think that this bunch of marchers is just a little crazy, as Sasha Stone told us:

“If the rule you are following has led you to this, of what use was the rule?”

“Do you have any idea how crazy you are?”

“You mean the nature of this conversation?”

“I mean the nature of you.”

So goes an exchange in No Country for Old Men, but it’s a conversation the Democrats might have with themselves as they gather for yet another protest after ten years of them. If the rule you are following has led you to this, of what use was the rule?”

Protests are meant to be the voices of the unheard. Yet these protests are the voices of those who never shut up. Not for one minute, not for ten years, and all of us have had to endure them like being trapped inside Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory with hundreds of thousands of Veruca Salts.

What are their No Kings protests anyway? What have they been since 2016? What are they trying to say? Is it like the ex who smashes all the dishes in the kitchen when her husband tries to leave? I won’t be ignored, DONALD.

What’s the point of it? To what end now? Of what use was the rule?

The voices of the unheard? More like the side that had everything. All the media, all the institutions, all the culture, and for a time, all of the government. The people had only Trump.

They had him and elected him. The other side lost the election and lost it badly. The man they claim to be a king, or dictator, or whatever other word you speak of, was the one who won the popular vote, carried 40 states, and 80-something percent of counties. Did I tell you that he got the US Senate and House?

What’s the point of marching against a king that we don’t have? Well, there is no point in these marches other than that we hate Trump and we hate him more than ever.

So, the marches will pass until the next time we march again. The media will tell us that millions marched and that this is some kind of movement. The real movement is the people going on with their normal lives and watching their kids play high school football or cheer Ohtani hitting three home runs.

Silvio Canto, Jr., American Thinker

By John D. Guandolo

People living in the West need to understand the Muslim mindset.

At a time when America finds itself dealing with pro-terrorist rallies on college campuses, the U.S. government providing military arms and equipment to Islamic countries, and Americans deeply concerned about impending terrorist threats and Islamic law (sharia) being imposed and adjudicated in local communities, how does the average person come to understand these issues? How can an effective solution be reached when few really seem to know what is going on?

Knowing Sharia Matters

It is helpful to begin with the understanding that the Islamic world sees everything through the same lens. That lens is sharia.

In Islam, sharia — “Allah’s divine law” — is the blueprint for how to live. It is what Islam seeks to impose on the Earth.

At the geopolitical level, every Muslim nation on earth is a party to the OIC — the Organization for Islamic Cooperation. The OIC is made up of every Islamic nation on earth (56) plus the “State of Palestine.” The OIC is the largest voting bloc in the United Nations.

In 1990, the OIC approved and in 1993 officially served to the United Nations “The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.” In it, every Muslim nation on Earth at the head of state and king level declared to the world that its only understanding of “human rights” is sharia.

In fact, the last article in the Cairo Declaration states, “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

In its doctrine, publications, public statements, videos, and other pronouncements, the leaders of the Islamic State (formerly ISIS), al-Qaeda, Hezb’allah, Hamas, and the other military jihadi organizations on the planet state that they exist to impose Islam.

Sayfullo Saipov, the jihadi who plowed a truck over people on a New York City bike path in October 2017, killing eight people and wounding over a dozen others, stated in open court, “I care about Allah and the holy war being waged by the Islamic State. … The Islamic State is not fighting for land, like some say, or, like some say, for oil.  They have one purpose, and they’re fighting to impose sharia on Earth.”

In 2013, Terry Lee Loewen, a convert to Islam, attempted to blow up a commercial airliner at the Wichita (Kansas) airport.  In response to questioning as to the motive, Loewen stated, “I have been studying subjects like jihad, martyrdom operations, and sharia law.  I don’t understand how you can read the Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet and not understand that jihad and the implementation of sharia is absolutely demanded of all the Muslim ummah [the global Muslim community].”

The most widely used text book to teach 7th-grade Muslim children about Islam in U.S. Islamic schools is titled What Islam is All About.  The children are taught that jihad is a duty for all Muslims and must be waged to establish an Islamic state under sharia.  Specifically, this book states, “Islam is not merely a religion, however, but a complete way of life. … The basis of the legal and political system is the sharia of Allah. … The law of the land is the sharia of Allah. … The duty of Muslim citizens is to be loyal to the Islamic State. … If anyone dies in jihad they are promised Paradise.”

Translating English to English through Sharia

Islam allows Muslim leaders to speak to an audience of Muslims and non-Muslims and have two different messages sent simultaneously.  This is possible because most non-Muslims have not taken the time to actually understand sharia, despite the fact it is the blueprint for how Islam lives, behaves, and wages war, and sharia is what Islam seeks to impose on the Earth for all Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Knowing terminology as defined by sharia drastically changes the understanding of reality on the ground by non-Muslim audiences.

As noted previously, Islam officially defines “human rights” as the imposition of sharia.

“Peace” in Islam is the state that exists when the entire world is under the control of sharia under a caliphate.

“Innocent” — only muslims are considered innocent in Islam.

“Terrorism” is killing a Muslim without the right to do so under sharia.  Sharia allows Muslims to be killed for specific reasons — apostasy, adultery, etc.  Anyone who kills Muslims outside sharia-prescribed reasons is a terrorist.

Therefore, when muslim leaders speak on television, or to any mixed audience of Muslims and non-Muslims, and make a statement such as “We call for an end to all terrorism, for the protection of all innocents and human rights to be protect across the world, because we want peace,” it means something very different to the non-Muslim audience from what it means to the Muslims.

As the current administration works toward “peace treaties” with Islamic nations, provides them with military weaponry, and continues using terms like “violent extremists” instead of “Muslims” or “jihadis” they may want to consider reading what sharia has to say about truces, treaties, and showing weakness.

American leaders may discover that we are losing a war while most of them do not seem to have any idea we are even in one.

Sayfullo Saipov, the jihadi who plowed a truck over people on a New York City bike path in October 2017, killing eight people and wounding over a dozen others, stated in open court, “I care about Allah and the holy war being waged by the Islamic State. … The Islamic State is not fighting for land, like some say, or, like some say, for oil.  They have one purpose, and they’re fighting to impose sharia on Earth.”

In 2013, Terry Lee Loewen, a convert to Islam, attempted to blow up a commercial airliner at the Wichita (Kansas) airport.  In response to questioning as to the motive, Loewen stated, “I have been studying subjects like jihad, martyrdom operations, and sharia law.  I don’t understand how you can read the Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet and not understand that jihad and the implementation of sharia is absolutely demanded of all the Muslim ummah [the global Muslim community].”

The most widely used text book to teach 7th-grade Muslim children about Islam in U.S. Islamic schools is titled What Islam is All About.  The children are taught that jihad is a duty for all Muslims and must be waged to establish an Islamic state under sharia.  Specifically, this book states, “Islam is not merely a religion, however, but a complete way of life. … The basis of the legal and political system is the sharia of Allah. … The law of the land is the sharia of Allah. … The duty of Muslim citizens is to be loyal to the Islamic State. … If anyone dies in jihad they are promised Paradise.”

Translating English to English through Sharia

Islam allows Muslim leaders to speak to an audience of Muslims and non-Muslims and have two different messages sent simultaneously.  This is possible because most non-Muslims have not taken the time to actually understand sharia, despite the fact it is the blueprint for how Islam lives, behaves, and wages war, and sharia is what Islam seeks to impose on the Earth for all Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Knowing terminology as defined by sharia drastically changes the understanding of reality on the ground by non-Muslim audiences.

As noted previously, Islam officially defines “human rights” as the imposition of sharia.

“Peace” in Islam is the state that exists when the entire world is under the control of sharia under a caliphate.

“Innocent” — only muslims are considered innocent in Islam.

“Terrorism” is killing a Muslim without the right to do so under sharia.  Sharia allows Muslims to be killed for specific reasons — apostasy, adultery, etc.  Anyone who kills Muslims outside sharia-prescribed reasons is a terrorist.

Therefore, when muslim leaders speak on television, or to any mixed audience of Muslims and non-Muslims, and make a statement such as “We call for an end to all terrorism, for the protection of all innocents and human rights to be protect across the world, because we want peace,” it means something very different to the non-Muslim audience from what it means to the Muslims.

As the current administration works toward “peace treaties” with Islamic nations, provides them with military weaponry, and continues using terms like “violent extremists” instead of “Muslims” or “jihadis” they may want to consider reading what sharia has to say about truces, treaties, and showing weakness.

American leaders may discover that we are losing a war while most of them do not seem to have any idea we are even in one.

By John D. Guandolo

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt really got under Democrats’ reptilian skin last week when she correctly noted, “The Democrat party’s main constituency is made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.”   Botoxed and unnaturally preserved devil-worshipers from Nancy Pelosi’s generation haven’t been this worked up since President Lincoln freed their slaves.  House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries did his best Greta Thunberg impression by sinisterly glaring at television cameras and slinging “How dare you?” insults in Leavitt’s direction.  There’s nothing that Democrats despise more than a person willing to tell the truth. 

It will be interesting to see whether Democrats’ main constituent groups — illegal aliens, violent criminals, Antifa terrorists, rabid communists, and Islamic jihadists — show up for the vaunted “No Kings” protests being staged around the country on October 18.  Previous iterations of this loony leftist “primal scream” have mainly attracted geriatric women reliving their “free love” hippie days and cuckolded manservants carrying their wives’ purses.  

It’s strange seeing so many old white people gathered in one place as if they were part of some wandering nursing home whose handlers (the same ones who fill out residents’ mail-in ballots) replaced patients’ daily pill cups with adrenaline shots and spiked the early-dine pudding rations with geezer rage.  An impartial observer could be forgiven for assuming that the gates to these Potemkin protests include an exclusionary post: “To enter, you must have fond memories of President Roosevelt (Theodore or Franklin) and have skin so pasty-white that you are easily confused for a corpse.”  After two decades during which the Democrat party has run on an explicitly racist platform — We hate white people, and we are entitled to steal everything they have — I suppose it makes sense that Democrats still retain so much support from those old enough to remember the Confederacy.

The October 18 “No Kings” extravaganza has been billed as the Democrats’ glitziest event of the year.  Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer — who is reportedly desperate to stave off a primary challenge from the hammer and sickle brigades running his party — has refused to fund the federal government until Democrats’ cosplaying “revolutionaries” can partake in at least one id-fest that permits their assorted criminals to burn down businesses and trash city streets. 

However, there’s only so much mayhem the Matlock and Murder, She Wrote contingents can unleash when so many drooling participants must nap between protest chants and visits to the restroom.  Previous “No Kings” performances have had all the pizzazz of a last-minute casting call for zombie extras in The Walking Dead.  

If Chuck and Hakeem really want to make a statement, they’ll let the tens of millions of criminal illegal aliens go wild on the streets of America and ask New York City mayor-to-be Zohran Mamdani to release his jihadi hordes.  Nothing says, “We love America” and “We should run the government” like a bunch of foreigners and anarchists screaming, “We hate America!” and “We must burn America to the ground!”  Leave it to the Democrats to habitually take sides with America’s enemies.  

In anticipation of the Democrat party’s latest day of rage,  Los Angeles County has declared a “state of emergency” over Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in the area, so that Democrat politicians can give illegal aliens “free” money.  That’s right, Democrat officials in California and other pro-crime death traps steal money from American citizens in the form of taxes so that they can pay illegal aliens to violate U.S. immigration laws.  

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt really got under Democrats’ reptilian skin last week when she correctly noted, “The Democrat party’s main constituency is made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.”   Botoxed and unnaturally preserved devil-worshipers from Nancy Pelosi’s generation haven’t been this worked up since President Lincoln freed their slaves.  House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries did his best Greta Thunberg impression by sinisterly glaring at television cameras and slinging “How dare you?” insults in Leavitt’s direction.  There’s nothing that Democrats despise more than a person willing to tell the truth. 

It will be interesting to see whether Democrats’ main constituent groups — illegal aliens, violent criminals, Antifa terrorists, rabid communists, and Islamic jihadists — show up for the vaunted “No Kings” protests being staged around the country on October 18.  Previous iterations of this loony leftist “primal scream” have mainly attracted geriatric women reliving their “free love” hippie days and cuckolded manservants carrying their wives’ purses.  

It’s strange seeing so many old white people gathered in one place as if they were part of some wandering nursing home whose handlers (the same ones who fill out residents’ mail-in ballots) replaced patients’ daily pill cups with adrenaline shots and spiked the early-dine pudding rations with geezer rage.  An impartial observer could be forgiven for assuming that the gates to these Potemkin protests include an exclusionary post: “To enter, you must have fond memories of President Roosevelt (Theodore or Franklin) and have skin so pasty-white that you are easily confused for a corpse.”  After two decades during which the Democrat party has run on an explicitly racist platform — We hate white people, and we are entitled to steal everything they have — I suppose it makes sense that Democrats still retain so much support from those old enough to remember the Confederacy.

The October 18 “No Kings” extravaganza has been billed as the Democrats’ glitziest event of the year.  Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer — who is reportedly desperate to stave off a primary challenge from the hammer and sickle brigades running his party — has refused to fund the federal government until Democrats’ cosplaying “revolutionaries” can partake in at least one id-fest that permits their assorted criminals to burn down businesses and trash city streets. 

However, there’s only so much mayhem the Matlock and Murder, She Wrote contingents can unleash when so many drooling participants must nap between protest chants and visits to the restroom.  Previous “No Kings” performances have had all the pizzazz of a last-minute casting call for zombie extras in The Walking Dead.  

If Chuck and Hakeem really want to make a statement, they’ll let the tens of millions of criminal illegal aliens go wild on the streets of America and ask New York City mayor-to-be Zohran Mamdani to release his jihadi hordes.  Nothing says, “We love America” and “We should run the government” like a bunch of foreigners and anarchists screaming, “We hate America!” and “We must burn America to the ground!”  Leave it to the Democrats to habitually take sides with America’s enemies.  

In anticipation of the Democrat party’s latest day of rage,  Los Angeles County has declared a “state of emergency” over Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in the area, so that Democrat politicians can give illegal aliens “free” money.  That’s right, Democrat officials in California and other pro-crime death traps steal money from American citizens in the form of taxes so that they can pay illegal aliens to violate U.S. immigration laws.  

Ironically, the same Democrats who refuse to call the arrival of tens of millions of foreign nationals an “invasion” have no problem smearing federal law enforcement officers with that label.  Illinois governor “Jabba the Pritzker” (hat tip to James Howard Kunstler for that gem) has repeatedly complained that President Trump’s mobilization of National Guard troops to protect federal property and the lives of federal agents constitutes an “invasion.”  Jabba the Pritzker also insists that President Trump is Adolf Hitler reincarnated and that ICE agents are acting as his Nazi Gestapo.  

This is how far down the demented rabbit hole Democrats have dragged us.  A prominent Democrat politician seeking his party’s 2028 presidential nomination has no problem with rapists, murderers, narco-terrorists, human-smugglers, or sex-traffickers taking advantage of Democrats’ open borders policies to spread death and destruction across the United States.  All those vile creatures are welcome in Illinois, California, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, and wherever else Democrat politicians turn human misery into political power and personal profit.  But if the president of the United States faithfully executes the duties of his office by preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution and safeguarding the lives and properties of the citizens of the United States, then Democrats will accuse him of being a “Nazi” and “invading” their lawless states.

J. B. Shurk, American Thinker

Wall Street Apes @WallStreetApes White House confirms Democrats have been lying, Illegals are on Medicaid

Dr. Oz, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CONFIRMS “We have proven that there’s been over a billion dollars — paid by U.S. taxpayers for illegal immigrants in about half a dozen states.”

“We’re just getting started. So it’s going to be significantly more money than that.”