Conservatives interested in higher-education reform often ask themselves where things went wrong. Answers usually range from the radicalism of the 1960s to the rise of social media or the triumph of critical theories in various departments and then the university as a whole. True, but the problem lies deeper, as well.

Few are willing to trace today’s ills to the rise of the Progressive University or, what is the same thing, the making of higher education in the image of the modern research university. The modern research university is a source of pride among modern peoples. Commercials for universities during football games emphasize how universities contribute to scientific progress, vanquishing diseases and engendering more prosperous living and economic growth.

American universities and universities worldwide (especially in Germany) have contributed much to the storehouse of scientific knowledge. Research universities have produced, collected, and organized knowledge for the relief of man’s estate. Yet, when the research university becomes the model for all fields of knowledge, intellectual corruption is not far away.

The Progressive University seeks to achieve progress through socially organized intelligence. Classical colleges, in contrast, were keepers of our civilizational flame. Frederick Rudolph’s fascinating Curriculum: A History of the American Undergraduate Course of Study Since 1636 (1977) celebrates the rise of this new vision of university life. Before the research university, American colleges such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and William & Mary were small classical colleges with fewer than two dozen faculty members each. Each designed its own admissions standards, and students interested in applying might attend “prep” schools to prepare for entrance exams. A fixed classical curriculum emphasizing Latin, moral philosophy, mathematics, and natural philosophy awaited students.

Menu

Creative, Adobe Stock Images

Putting the Progressive University in the Dock

Higher education has not always been like this.

Dec 5, 2025 Scott Yenor

LinkedInXFacebook

EmailPrint

Conservatives interested in higher-education reform often ask themselves where things went wrong. Answers usually range from the radicalism of the 1960s to the rise of social media or the triumph of critical theories in various departments and then the university as a whole. True, but the problem lies deeper, as well.

Few are willing to trace today’s ills to the rise of the Progressive University or, what is the same thing, the making of higher education in the image of the modern research university. The modern research university is a source of pride among modern peoples. Commercials for universities during football games emphasize how universities contribute to scientific progress, vanquishing diseases and engendering more prosperous living and economic growth.

Few are willing to trace today’s ills to the making of higher education as the modern research university.American universities and universities worldwide (especially in Germany) have contributed much to the storehouse of scientific knowledge. Research universities have produced, collected, and organized knowledge for the relief of man’s estate. Yet, when the research university becomes the model for all fields of knowledge, intellectual corruption is not far away.

When the research university becomes the model for all fields of knowledge, intellectual corruption is not far away.The Progressive University seeks to achieve progress through socially organized intelligence. Classical colleges, in contrast, were keepers of our civilizational flame. Frederick Rudolph’s fascinating Curriculum: A History of the American Undergraduate Course of Study Since 1636 (1977) celebrates the rise of this new vision of university life. Before the research university, American colleges such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and William & Mary were small classical colleges with fewer than two dozen faculty members each. Each designed its own admissions standards, and students interested in applying might attend “prep” schools to prepare for entrance exams. A fixed classical curriculum emphasizing Latin, moral philosophy, mathematics, and natural philosophy awaited students. Faculty were called professors (e.g., professor of moral philosophy and belles-lettres), but they did not belong to formal departments and did not have anything like PhDs. They were intelligent amateurs, in love with their subject matters and deemed acceptable by the rest of the faculty. There were no majors, no accreditors, no electives, no professional organizations, and no departments. Well fewer than five percent of Americans attended such schools, though the institutions had an outsized influence on American politics through preparing statesmen, community leaders, and ordinary politicians.

Other educational institutions existed during the heyday of the classical college. Academies arose locally to prepare people for professions. Agriculture, trade, and engineering academies, for instance, staffed by intelligent practitioners in those areas, trained future practitioners. Professional schools in theology, law, and medicine would admit and train graduates from classical colleges or others able to pass entrance exams. Common schools gave citizens a good enough education for purposes of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Prep schools would get students ready for entrance exams for colleges. Societies of amateurs arose to pursue scientific knowledge, making no few advances over the course of time.

The somewhat haphazard American system of higher learning was not, under the classical model, harnessing educational institutions for the advancement of knowledge and the relief of man’s estate, as other systems around the world had begun to do. Germany was late to the big-power competition in Europe, but it caught up with a more dedicated form of national pride and a super-competent system of education with the research university at its apex. Americans borrowed liberally, but not slavishly, from the German idea of the university as they built the Progressive University.

It took generations for the new model to fully conquer American higher education. The Progressive University is organized around specialized and professionalized departments with an overarching and increasingly professionalized administration. Curricula revolve mostly around departments. Departments conduct hiring. Hiring is increasingly specialized and credentialed, such that a department will hire PhDs only from acceptable degree-granting departmental programs. Departments grant tenure and promotion, based on discipline-specific publications. Remnants of the old classical idea persisted for a generation in general education, but increasingly specific departments now offer it.

Less than a third of faculty in higher education had PhDs in 1900. Still, in 1903, William James, a mere amateur, penned “The PhD Octopus,” critical of the coming necessity that all future college professors have PhDs. “America is,” James wrote, “rapidly drifting towards a state of things in which no man of science or letters will be accounted respectable unless some kind of badge or diploma is stamped upon him.” He hoped to “cast a critical eye upon this decidedly grotesque tendency” lest America, like other nations, “suffer terribly from the Mandarin disease.” The “institutionalizing on a large scale of any natural combination of need and motive,” he warned, “always tends to run into technicality and to develop a tyrannical Machine with unforeseen powers of exclusion and corruption.”

We are five generations into an experiment in which the higher-education system is dominated by PhDs.Slowly but surely, the demand for PhDs increased as more were produced. First, in the early 1900s, major universities aspired to have department chairs with PhDs. A half-century later, a majority of faculty in the hard sciences had PhDs. By the 1960s, most faculty in the humanities had PhDs, too. What the PhD indicated, however, was the rise of the academic discipline or department as the central organizing principle of higher education. Students major in a discipline. Departments provide classes for general education. Departments staff the university. PhD programs produce professors, not “men of letters.”

Where classical colleges were strong, the Progressive University is weak.We are, in a sense, five generations into this experiment in which the higher-education system is dominated by PhDs and departments. We can conduct a postmortem on the Progressive University’s living body.

On one hand, aspects of the Progressive University are powerful and attractive. In theory, faculty focusing on one area of knowledge in research and teaching contributes to the project of conquering nature by obeying and understanding it. The more faculty in the hard sciences focus on medical research or oxidation, the more likely they are to go deep and make discoveries into the secret workings of nature. Much evidence exists that physics, biology, medical, and nursing faculty make precisely such advances. Students benefit from learning about science from such experts. America’s polytechnic and engineering programs are envies of the world, as evidenced by how many foreigners attend American engineering schools.

“The ignorance and general incompetency of the average graduate of American Medical Schools,” wrote Harvard’s Charles Eliot in the 1870s, “is something horrible to contemplate. The whole system of medical education in this country needs thorough reformation.” And medical schools were reformed, in part through professional associations dedicated to improving specialties, in part through the hiring of faculty capable of producing and knowing the latest research, and in part by the building of standardized medical schools with real admissions standards. No one would repeat Eliot’s critique of medical schools today!—where universities contribute to progress and technical training with the real stuff of nature: atoms, mechanical structures, or the human body.

Real downsides exist for the Progressive University, however. Where classical colleges were strong, the Progressive University is weak. Universities trade depth and specialization for breadth and wisdom. Faculty were more attached to their colleges than to a discipline under the classical model. Faculty were intelligent generalists hired for their ability to teach and inspire, not for their ability to conduct research. Faculty often grasped the wider swath of Western Civilization, being knowers of philosophy, history, literature, and theology—or what was once called “belles-lettres.” The backward-looking understanding of our civilizational roots was front and center, while the progressive and technical branches were to be learned elsewhere.

Nearly all of the non-hard-science “disciplines” now adopt the research methods of the hard sciences, as if the social sciences or the humane “disciplines” are just different versions of physics or biology. The center of gravity on the Progressive University is toward the hard sciences. Political science, for instance—my discipline—no longer aspires to understand the regime or offers a diagnosis of our political situation with a remedy but makes itself irrelevant to politics through “positivistic” research methods borrowed from the natural sciences. Other social sciences, even less grounded in reality, are simply dominated by ideological thinking.

Consider, for a moment, the plight of the many civics centers being established around the country—something reformers put much faith in. Each civics center is trying to do something bigger than a department. They are trying to restore some understanding of the classical college in a part of the Progressive University. However, they must all use the tools of the Progressive University to do so. They must find scholars who have earned a PhD in a specific discipline, who conduct ongoing research in their field of study, who are well-published through the peer-review process, et cetera. Each genuinely classical faculty member is a kind of miracle, surviving as a generalist in an age of extreme specialization and scientism. “Where will we find aligned faculty?” is the question on the lips of every administrator in civics centers.

Must practically every university have, mostly, the same administrative and curricular form (as they do today)?Higher-education reformers should put the Progressive University—the university designed to produce organized social intelligence through modern research methods—in the dock. The Progressive University is, according to its supporters, something liberating and powerful. There is something to that. Nevertheless, we should revisit questions long thought to be settled: Can different disciplines coexist easily on campuses? Is organizing curricula around disciplines a salutary development, or does it hamstring reformers’ efforts to preserve our civilizational heritage? Must we have PhDs teaching all university courses? Must practically every university and college have, mostly, the same administrative and curricular form (as they do today)?

No simple return to the classical college is possible. We will have research universities, and we should. We will have big medical schools, and we should. But the Progressive University is not an unmixed blessing to the cause of civilization. The Progressive University cannot and should not be simply destroyed. Instead, we should painfully, deliberately peel back the assumptions on which our Progressive University system has been built and reconsider.

Scott Yenor is director of the Kenneth B. Simon Center for American Politics at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington Fellow at the Claremont Institute, and a professor of political science at Boise State University.

A liar thinks everyone is lying.

The election result of a Republican victory in Tennessee — like the recent Democrat/Communist victories in New York and Virginia — mainly reinforce how divided America is. People on each side are doubling and tripling down. There’s no longer any middle; it all boils down to capitalism and individual liberty (which Republicans pay some lip service and loyalty to); versus totalitarianism (which the Democratic Party has now adopted nationwide). In a way, it’s all for the good. Sooner or later, Americans must come to understand: It’s one or the other. Communism is not compatible with capitalism. Individual rights are incompatible with the Democratic Party. The Bill of Rights and the Green New Deal/Sharia Law simply cannot coexist.

The parties now give us a stark choice. Republicans are for liberty, if only by default. Democrats are for total sacrifice of the individual to the State in as hard core a manner as ever seen in this country.

The choice is yours, America. While you still have any choices.

As for Communism, remember a timeless truth about socialism or Communism: Those who scream the loudest about the “evils” of money are the ones who will sell their souls for it.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Christmas generally means one of two things to people: Jesus Christ; or capitalism, meaning the gifts and material or secular celebrations.

In today’s culture, Christmas is more important than ever before. Businesses practically close down for the entire month. (Have you tried getting business done with a bank, an insurance company, or just about anything other than a retail store during Thanksgiving to Christmas? Or tried to find a job? Or get even minimal service from a government agency?) Black Friday shopping sprees now top summer vacation and almost eclipse Christmas itself.

Yes, Christmas is all about either Jesus or capitalism. Yet these are two things disparaged by cultural and corporate elites (all leftist, now even Communist) who rule over us. Interesting. Why do they approve of Christmas when it’s made possible by the two things they loathe the most: capitalism and Jesus?

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Nothing says “hope and change” quite like bulldozing a beloved public park for a 235-foot phallic tower dedicated to oneself. Welcome to the Obama Presidential Center (OPC), an $830 million (and rising) vanity project in Chicago’s historic Jackson Park. The man who once preached community organizing couldn’t find a single non-park site in his hometown for his monument. I get angry every time I see a story about this thing. It feels as if Obama is giving America a gigantic, double-barreled middle finger. No honest observer can look at this monstrosity and feel inspired. Like the modern Democrat Party, the OPC has zero redeeming features.

Let’s start with the trees: over 800 mature oaks, many a century old, were felled for parking and “campus” space. Environmentalists who paralyzed industries to save a single spotted owl suddenly decided trees are renewable when a favored Democrat is involved. A Frederick Law Olmsted-designed urban oasis was sacrificed without a shrug. The community hated it from the start. Bronzeville residents, preservationists, and even Obama voters begged the foundation to build somewhere, anywhere else — abandoned lots and shuttered factories were plentiful. Instead, the Obamas demanded federally protected parkland for a private foundation that will one day charge admission. Lawsuits were filed, federal reviews manipulated, and courts eventually capitulated.

The building itself defies description. Critics call it Stalinist, Brutalist, or a rejected Bond-villain lair; supporters claim that it’s “bold.” It offends traditionalists and competent modernists alike. It resembles either a North Korean guard tower or a Star Wars Jawa sandcrawler — take your pick.

Cost was originally pitched at $500 million; it’s now past $830 million with no end in sight. A promised $470 million endowment meant to offset neighborhood damage and future maintenance has only $1 million in it and no realistic funding plan. The Chicago machine, as usual, simply looked the other way.

Staff salaries are equally shameless. Valerie Jarrett, an old Obama confidante, was installed as director at nearly $750,000 a year despite the museum remaining unbuilt. By opening day (if it ever comes), she’ll have collected almost $2 million — much of it apparently from early donor funds — while taxpayers will cover ongoing upkeep.

Construction, handled by the hand-picked Lakeside Alliance, promised diversity and local hiring. It delivered federal indictments instead. The safety record was catastrophic — workers fell, fingers were severed, racial slurs scrawled on site. Minority subcontractors say they were stiffed while prime contractors cashed in.

Inside, visitors won’t find presidential papers (those are digitized elsewhere, safely away from scholars). They’ll get immersive exhibits about Barack’s greatness, Michelle’s garden, and probably a hologram slow-jamming the news. Run by a private foundation, the “library” can charge whatever it wants for access. Transparency you can believe in. Jackson Park, once a free public space for picnics and pickup games, is now a gated, security-patrolled compound where ordinary Chicagoans will pay to admire murals of the Great Leader. Frederick Law Olmsted spins in his grave.

The OPC perfectly embodies elite Democrat hypocrisy: lecture the country about sacrifice and community, then raze a public park, burn through a billion dollars, and erect a concrete eyesore — all while keeping actual records under private lock and key.

Strip away the renderings and PBS specials, and the Obama Center is a 235-foot park-gobbling “up yours” to the country he once pretended to serve. A private fortress in a working-class public park (used heavily by black Chicagoans), ringed by bollards and ticket booths. A “presidential library” with no papers. A tower that announces the rules — preservation, open records, environmental review, basic aesthetics — are for little people only.

Every over-budget yard of concrete screams: We got ours; you get selfies at the gift shop. The couple who scolded us about carbon footprints clear-cut ancient oaks. The administration that demonized “millionaires and billionaires” vacuumed anonymous nine-figure donations while the South Side bled and the city teeters on bankruptcy. When workers were maimed, subcontractors stiffed, and costs exploded, the response was always a polished shrug and another gala.

This isn’t just narcissism; it’s contempt poured in concrete and glass on ground that once belonged to everyone. The Obama Center isn’t a monument to a president. It’s a tribute to a ruling class that no longer hides its disdain for the rest of us.

Psalm 123 comes to mind: “Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy. For we are filled with contempt. Our soul has had enough of the scorn of the rich, of the proud man’s disdain.”

Kevin Finn, American Thinker

Listening to the news, how often do you feel gaslighted? Lied to? I’m guessing quite often. Again, we’re being lied to about Islam; you know, the “religion of peace.” Last week, a practicing Muslim gunned down two National Guard (NG) soldiers in Washington D.C. Immediately, the claptrap media warned against Islamophobia, that the murder had nothing to do with Islam. Right, and abortion has nothing to do with infanticide. Do people actually believe such lies? Obviously, they do, because media such as MS-NOW (former MSNBC), CNN, the NY Times, NPR, and all the other leftist media blamed President Trump for instigating and inciting the Muslim to action. A quick review will help.

Prior to the late 1960s and early 70s, most in the West didn’t think much or often of the Middle East or threats posed by Islam. We were more occupied with the Soviet threat. Nevertheless, Muslim/Islamic terrorists were killing people all over the world — particularly targeting Israel and Jews, hijacking planes, shooting up airports, bombing embassies, and the like. When Iranian Muslims captured the U.S. Embassy in Tehran (1979), and held Americans hostage for 444 days, we took notice. In the ensuing decades, Muslim terrorists and Islamic madmen have been on the march across the globe — the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed (April 1983 — 49 killed); the Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed (October 1983 — 241 killed); Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed (1988 – 270 killed); World Trade Center was bombed (1993 — six killed); the Khobar Tower was bombed (1996 — 19 airmen killed); U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed (1998 — hundreds killed, thousands injured); the USS Cole was bombed (2000 — 19 sailors killed); and the 9/11 attacks (September 2001 — killed thousands). Since 9/11, Islamic terrorist attacks targeting Americans, both here and abroad, have almost become routine — the Shoe Bomber, the Underwear Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, the Boston Marathon Bombers, the San Bernadino attack (2015 — 14 killed), the Orlando Nightclub Shooting (2016 — 49 killed), the NYC truck attack (2017), the New Orleans truck ramming (2025 New Years Day — 14 killed), and last month’s shooting of two NG soldiers in D.C. 

The above attacks were some of the major ones against American targets. Muslims have targeted just about every country in the world beginning with attacks against Israel’s Olympic Team (Munich 1972 — 12 killed); Beirut became a hellhole (1970s and 80s); the Bali Nightclub attack (2002 – 202 killed); the Madrid Train bombing (2004 – 193 killed, thousands injured); the London Subway bombing (2005 — 56 killed); the Mumbai, India attacks (2008 — 175 killed); the Charlie Hebdo attack (2015 — 17 killed); the Paris Nightclub suicide bombings (2015 — 130 killed); the Nice, France truck attack (2016 — 86 killed); and the Moscow Theater Attack (2024 — 145 killed). Let’s not forget the Hamas Oct 7, 2023 attack on Israel that killed over 1,200 and took 250 hostages. These were the Muslim attacks that garnered large media because they were against western countries and killed westerners. 

Elsewhere, Christians in Nigeria are being genocided by Muslims. Also daily, in Africa/Muslim/Arab/Islamic countries there are terrorist attacks that kill one, two, or dozens and receive little media attention. Apart from non-Muslims being killed by Muslims, Muslims kill more of themselves far and away than they kill of others.

If you think these attacks by Muslims are one-offs and happen infrequently, think again. According to the website “thereligionofpeace.com,” worldwide last month there were 92 Islamic attacks in 17 countries that killed 378 people and injured 210. The website admits they don’t catch all attacks, because some are not immediately reported or claimed by a terrorist group. Actually, November was a light month. The previous month saw 152 Islamic attacks in 18 countries that killed 2,548 and injured 458. In all of 2025, there have been 1,875 Islamic attacks in 48 countries, 13,337 people killed and 6,139 injured. In 2024, worldwide there were 1,762 Islamic attacks in 52 countries, 9,587 people killed and 8,464 injured. Every year prior had similar numbers, all carried out by Muslims.

It is obvious that Islam is at war with the world and even among themselves. Islam is not using standing armies; instead, it has deployed millions of propagandized foot-soldiers around the world. Islam is a broke culture and ideology, incompatible with civilized society. It oppresses half its population (women) and turns the other half (men) into oppressors who treat other cultures and peoples as subservient. If Satan founded a religion, it would be Islam, because Satan deceives and oppresses; ditto for Islam.

The terrorist shooting of the National Guard soldiers in Washington was carried out by an Afghan Muslim refugee, who was granted asylum status but “struggled to adapt” to the United States. Dems and leftists are the only ones surprised that third-world Muslim refugees “struggle” and don’t assimilate into American culture. There is almost zero chance that any Muslim refugee will assimilate into American culture, because nothing here is remotely similar to Afghanistan or to any other Muslim country. Yet, the Biden regime brought in tens of thousands, knowing they wouldn’t assimilate and labelling all those who thought they should racist/xenophobic. Our language, religion, culture, and way of life are incompatible with Islam because Islam is an ideology of oppression that wraps itself in the cloak of religion.

At one time, immigrants were not allowed into this country unless they could 100% support themselves and their families. Now, the Dems import illegal immigrants from third-world hellholes, and wantonly support them with $$$ Billions in freebies. After this latest Muslim terror attack, President Trump announced a halt to all visas to third-world countries (except for tourist visas). Also, he ordered a complete re-examination of all Afghan asylum seekers. Those announcements are a good start, but given that Islamic ideology is incapable of existing alongside the U.S. Constitution, all Muslim asylum seekers should be reviewed.

No surprise, the Dems are hoppin’ mad because the Trump administration is cutting funding to illegals, deporting illegals, and deporting unvetted asylum seekers. They’re upset because by deporting illegals and other extremists, their voting base is being deported. Dems know they cannot win debates based on ideas. So, they brought in millions to replace the voters who are fleeing them in droves. 

Sloan Oliver, American Thinker

An unattributable aphorism says, “You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.” Most Americans of just a decade ago would think it no more than a witty phrase. It couldn’t happen here, right? We wish we could be sure of that today, but we can’t.

New York City elected a self-identified Democratic Socialist who denies he’s a communist but whose policy platform is dead red, his playbook tracking with Karl Marx’s nasty polemic.

Portlanders elected Katie Wilson to be their mayor. Her wish list reads as if it could have been written by Eugene V. Debs, the socialist who ran five times for president but, mercifully, never received a single electoral vote.

Minneapolis almost elected a Somali socialist from the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party as mayor, but instead voted in incumbent Jacob Frey – who inspires no confidence among the defenders of liberty and capitalism.

As disturbing as these events are, more concerning are the results of a poll that show 51% of likely voters from 18 to 39 want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election. The Rasmussen Reports survey, sponsored by the Heartland Institute, found that only 36% in that age group aren’t wishing for a democratic socialist to win in 2028, while 17% simply don’t know.

How did this happen? More than half, 54%, of those who want a socialist president, “said their parents or guardians were favorable toward democratic socialism to the best of their recollection when they were growing up.”

Sounds like the offspring of the many – far too many – university professors who no longer teach academics but see their role as proselytizers twisting young minds toward hard-left dogma.

If not their parents, they were influenced by what they were fed in academia: 52% of the under-40 voters said that while “attending school, most of their teachers and professors were favorable toward democratic socialism, including 22% who say their teachers were very favorable toward it.”

This is alarming. Socialism is nasty and unsuitable to humanity for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it attracts the worst among us, the sort who thrill in having control over others, to be its leaders.

“They are precisely the kind of people who elevate power over persuasion, force over cooperation,” says economist Lawrence Reed. “Government, possessing by definition a legal and political monopoly of the use of force, attracts them just as surely as dung draws flies.”

Reed wrote that almost 20 years ago. But he could have been writing about Democrats today and the blue state voters who “have a penchant for voting for the worst that their party has to offer.“

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali who grew up under that country’s socialist boot before she fled to the Netherlands, saw firsthand how socialism fails to “see individual human beings as having inherent dignity.” Based on this concept, socialism divides “society into two clashing, competing classes: the group that was economically oppressive (the capitalists) and the group that was economically oppressed (the workers).”

“In this worldview, individualism as a concept became not merely meaningless but suspect,” she says.

A Pew Research poll from 2019 indicates that positions on socialism have shifted in just a few years. That survey found that 55% of Americans had a negative view of socialism, and their reasons were on the mark. They opposed socialism, they said, because it undermines the work ethic and increases dependence on government, and they noted its unbroken line of historical failures.

The 42% who had a positive view of socialism said they held that opinion because it “creates a fairer, more generous system.” But nowhere has socialism created a fairer system, and there’s zero generosity in forcibly taking from some to give to others.

It’s discouraging that so many Americans fall for the fables of Karl Marx that the likes of Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Zohran Mamdani preach. (This short list of cranks confirms the assertion that the worst always end up at the top in socialist systems.)

Socialism in any form is tyrannical, requiring submission to the state. It crushes souls (see North Korea, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and East Germany, for starters). It makes a few, its “leaders,” fabulously wealthy, while holding the masses in poverty. Its promises are cruel lies intended to deceive.

We hope we never reach the point where those of us who don’t want to be part of the commune that is ordered about by kakistocrats have to shoot our way out of socialism. That would be tragic, but less so than living with a hammer over our heads and a sickle at our throats.

Issues and Insights Editorial Board

The White House has paused all immigration applications from 19 countries and canceled citizenship ceremonies across the US, citing national security and public safety concerns.  

The freeze could affect more than 1.5 million people who had asylum applications pending and more than 50,000 who received asylum grants under the Biden administration, The New York Times reports.

President Donald Trump is also considering expanding the travel ban to more than 30 countries, according to the New York Post. 

The new policy memorandum, released Tuesday night, cites last week’s ‘terror attack’ in D.C. where Afghan man Rahmanullah Lakanwal was arrested for allegedly killing one National Guard member and wounding another. 

The ban applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen while the restricted access applied to people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. 

It puts a stop to all immigration related activities, including a temporary suspension on the completion of citizenship ceremonies, involving legal permanent residents of the 19 countries, per CBS News. 

‘The Trump administration is making every effort to ensure individuals becoming citizens are the best of the best. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right,’ said US Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Matthew Tragesser.

We will take no chances when the future of our nation is at stake.’ 

According to a Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by The Washington Post, anyone attempting to migrate to the US will need to be vetted again. 

‘This memorandum mandates that all aliens meeting these criteria undergo a thorough re-review process, including a potential interview and, if necessary, a re-interview, to fully assess all national security and public safety threats,’ it states.

It also allows DHS to potentially block applicants using a broad definition of ‘inadmissibility or ineligibility’.

Todd Pomerleau, an immigration attorney recently in the news for representing the mother of Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s nephew in court, said it will be challenged in court ‘before the ink is dry’.

‘This is basically allowing for the targeting of people because of their nationality, because of where they’re born, who they may associate with, and any ideas they may have, religions they may practice,’ he said. 

Trump first announced the sweeping bans last week when he blasted former president Joe Biden for letting unvetted migrants into America – claiming he allowed the Afghan shooting suspect into the US during the disastrous 2021 withdrawal. 

He has also stepped up his rhetoric against Somalis in recent days, calling them ‘garbage’ and declaring ‘we don’t want them in our country’. 

Trump announced in a Truth Social post last Thursday night that he would ‘permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the US system to fully recover’.

‘Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation,’ he wrote in the Truth Social post, as he vowed to end all federal benefits for noncitizens, denaturalize migrants who undermine the US, and deport any foreign nationals deemed a security risk or ‘non-compatible with Western Civilization’.

Secretary of State Kristi Noem doubled down on Monday and revealed plans for a ‘full travel ban’ on countries that are sending ‘killers, leeches and entitlement junkies’.

Should the US halt immigration from these 19 countries?YesNo

‘Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and the unyielding love of freedom – not for foreign invaders to slaughter our heroes, suck dry our hard-earned tax dollars, or snatch the benefits owed to AMERICANS. WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE.’ 

Federal officials have described the move as a ‘full scale, rigorous’ process and a dramatic escalation triggered by the D.C attack near the White House.

Sarah Beckstrom, 20, was killed in the shooting, and 24-year-old Andrew Wolfe is now fighting for his life.

The shooting suspect, Lakanwal, arrived in America in 2021 as part of the disastrous US withdrawal from Afghanistan after serving as an ally of Special Forces troops in his CIA-backed ‘Zero Unit’.

During the withdrawal incredible photos and video showed hundreds of Afghans running to board cargo jets. On one plane 640 migrants were overloaded into an aircraft designed to carry 150.

Lakanwal was granted asylum in April – which made him eligible for a green card after one year in the US. 

The dad-of-five is now facing first degree murder charges after Beckstrom succumbed to her injuries on Thanksgiving Day.

But this is not the first time Trump has limited immigration since taking office for the second time.

In June, the president signed a proclamation to ‘fully restrict and limit the entry of nationals’ following an antisemitic firebombing attack in Colorado, which was allegedly perpetuated by Mohamed Soliman, an Egyptian national in the US on an expired tourist visa.

The 19 countries included in Tuesday’s travel ban were then subjected to partial restrictions announced in June.

When Trump initially put the restrictions in place, he said that the tragedy in Boulder ‘underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted. 

‘We’ve seen one terror attack after another from foreign visa overstayers… thanks to Biden’s open door policies today there are millions and millions of these illegals who should not be in our country.’ 

Under the new policy, pending immigration applications are paused and all immigrants from the list of countries are required to ‘undergo a thorough re-review process, including a potential interview and, if necessary, a re-interview, to fully assess all national security and public safety threats’.

President Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that Americans may “not even have income tax to pay” in the near future, saying tariff-driven revenue could allow for the historic elimination of the federal income tax under his tenure.

Trump told a press gaggle after his cabinet meeting that “at some point in the not too distant future you won’t even have income tax to pay,” arguing that revenue the government is collecting under his administration is now “so great… so enormous.”

“Whether you get rid of it or just keep it around for fun or have it really low, much lower than it is now, but you won’t be paying income tax,” Trump added.

If enacted, abolishing income tax would mark the most ambitious overhaul of the American tax system in more than a century. Trump’s repeated public support for replacing income tax with tariffs makes this the most explicit endorsement yet.

Earlier in his second administration, the president floated a tax plan eliminating income tax for individuals earning under $150,000, with tariffs proposed as a replacement.

“It’s time for the United States to return to the system that made us richer and more powerful than ever before,” the president said back in January. “Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich foreign nations, we should be tariffing and taxing foreign nations to enrich our citizens.”

When asked if he was serious about eliminating personal income taxes by podcaster Joe Rogan, then-candidate Trump responded, “Yeah, sure, why not?” and said tariffs could fund the government instead of wage taxes.

His views on the income tax have changed — as part of his prospective run for president in 1999 under the Reform Party, Trump considered a one-time “net worth” tax on those with wealth over $10 million.

If serious, Trump’s proposal would require major tax-code changes and likely face legislative hurdles with a narrow House majority.

Abolishing the income tax has long been a fringe idea, but with Trump pushing aggressive tariff revenue, the concept has moved closer to the mainstream debate stage.

A third of Minnesota’s non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) reviewed in a recent audit by the Department of Transportation (DOT) were illegally issued, Sec. Sean Duffy announced Monday.

The review was conducted by the DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) as part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on “unqualified non-citizens” endangering Americans on the roads.

The state has 30 days to come into compliance and revoke the illegally-issued CDLs, or risk losing up to $30.4 million in federal highway funding, a department press release stated.

Officials wrote that Minnesota now has two choices going forward — “follow the law or lose funding.”

Duffy directly called out Gov. Tim Walz (D) in a statement:

Our audit exposes yet another example of foreigners taking advantage of Minnesota services under Governor Walz’s watch. Minnesota failed to follow the law and illegally doled out trucking licenses to unsafe, unqualified non-citizens – endangering American families on the road. That abuse stops now under the Trump Administration. The Department will withhold funding if Minnesota continues this reckless behavior that puts non-citizens gaming the system ahead of the safety of Americans.

A letter from the FMCSA sent to Walz and Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson outlined the audit’s findings, detailing how the state gave non-domiciled CDLs to drivers whose lawful presence in the U.S. had expired, whose lawful presence in the U.S. had not been verified, and who were prohibited from obtaining such a license in the first place.

The DOT is now “demanding” that Minnesota execute a corrective course of action, including a pause on issuance of non-domiciled CDLs and identifying all unexpired non-domiciled CDLs that fail to comply with the regulations.

“Minnesota is openly and blatantly defying our rules, plain and simple,” said FMCSA Administrator Derek D. Barrs. “Under the Trump Administration, states have two choices: meet our standards or face the consequences. Following the law is not optional.” 

The latest review of Minnesota is part of the DOT’s overall nationwide audit of CDLs after foreign truckers were accused of causing deadly crashes in several states. 

Federal and state authorities arrested nearly 250 foreign commercial truck drivers in November alone, Breitbart News reported.

Olivia Rondeau is a politics reporter for Breitbart News based in Washington, DC

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Newly released results of a medical exam proved what many had suspected for years, as an MRI confirmed that President Donald Trump suffers from incurable advanced-stage patriotism.

The results of the scan affirmed speculation that had run wild throughout the nation’s capital and across the country for the last decade, with lawmakers and journalists alike alleging that Trump was riddled with love for America that had spread throughout his entire body.

“It’s far more widespread than anyone thought,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters in a briefing. “His liver, his lymph nodes, even in his bone marrow. President Trump’s body has been fully consumed by patriotism. We’ve been informed by all medical experts that there is, in fact, no cure.”

When asked directly about his condition, the president was blunt. “Nobody’s got a case of this like mine,” he told the media in brief comments in the Oval Office. “The doctor told me he’s never seen anything like it. He said he was surprised I was still alive with how much of it I have everywhere in my body. It’s like I’m superhuman, he said. That’s what he told me. Most people wouldn’t survive such a severe case of loving their country. It’s just the way I am. I’m not like other men, believe me.”

At publishing time, medical professionals issued a warning that President Trump’s incurable, advanced-stage patriotism was likely to be dangerously contagious and could be spread to any people who spent time around him.

Babylon Bee