Democrats Want To Tear Down The Ballroom

 

Democrats are saying they're gonna tear down the Ballroom. All they how to do is loot and tear down stuff. They can't build anything. Trump builds stuff. I guess they wanna party in caves. How in the world can half of the country be so mad when they live in the best, youngest, and richest country in the world. They should go to Zimbabwe, or one of the other 170 countries the ILLEGALS came from 'since it's so bad here ...

Of course. Here is an 800-word article that expands on the themes and perspectives within the provided post, presenting a structured argument while acknowledging the underlying political divisions.

Building, Tearing Down, and the Divided American Soul

A recent social media post captures the essence of a deep and bitter political divide in America. It accuses one side of only knowing how to “loot and tear down,” while praising the other for its ability to “build stuff.” This sentiment, echoed in various forms across the political landscape, is more than just partisan sniping; it is a reflection of two fundamentally different visions of the nation’s past, present, and future. To understand this chasm, we must look beyond the heated rhetoric and examine the core narratives at play.

The Narrative of Preservation and Construction

The perspective voiced in the post is rooted in a narrative of American triumphalism. From this viewpoint, the United States is indeed the “best, youngest, and richest country in the world,” a nation forged through grit, innovation, and unparalleled success. The figure of Donald Trump is central to this narrative—a businessman and dealmaker who embodies the spirit of construction, from skyscrapers to, symbolically, a fortified nation.

In this framework, actions like tearing down a ballroom—or, more broadly, calls to dismantle historical monuments, defund police departments, or radically reshape economic systems—are seen as acts of nihilism. They are interpreted not as progress, but as an ungrateful assault on the very foundations of a prosperous society. The suggestion that dissatisfied citizens should “go to Zimbabwe” underscores a belief that the problems cited by the other side are not only exaggerated but are a rejection of an objectively superior American reality. The focus is on preserving what has been built and building upon that foundation, viewing any radical deconstruction as a dangerous and destructive impulse.

The Narrative of Reformation and Progress

On the other side of this divide lies a perspective that sees the act of “tearing down” not as destruction for its own sake, but as a necessary precondition for building something better and more just. For many, the “ballroom” is not a neutral structure; it may represent systemic inequalities, a history of exclusion, or institutions that have failed to serve all citizens equally.

This worldview does not see a nation that has achieved perfection. Instead, it sees a country with a profound and unresolved legacy of racism, economic disparity, and social injustice. The act of protesting, of demanding change, and of critiquing national myths is not an expression of hatred for America, but a form of patriotic engagement—a demand that the nation live up to its stated ideals. From the Civil Rights Movement to contemporary social justice efforts, the impetus has been to tear down the legal and social walls that prevent the “ballroom” from being a place for everyone. The belief is that you cannot build a truly equitable future on a flawed foundation; the old structure must be examined, and if found rotten, replaced.

Beyond the Binary: The Complexity of National Identity

The stark dichotomy of “builder” versus “destroyer” is a political simplification that obscures a more complex reality. American history is a continuous cycle of construction, critique, deconstruction, and renewal. The Founding Fathers were, in their context, radicals who “tore down” their political connection to the British Empire to “build” a new republic. The Industrial Revolution built immense wealth but also required the labor movement to tear down exploitative practices to build a fairer workplace.

The question of who is a “builder” is often a matter of perspective. Is building a wall an act of construction or a symbol of division? Is tearing down a Confederate statue an act of erasing history or of building a more inclusive public square? One side’s “law and order” is the other’s “systemic oppression.” One side’s “economic boom” is the other’s “rampant inequality.”

The frustration expressed in the original post—“How in the world can half of the country be so mad?”—stems from this fundamental clash of realities. The answer is that the two halves are not living in the same country, experientially or philosophically. One inhabits a nation of unparalleled opportunity, while the other inhabits a nation where that opportunity is not equally distributed. One sees a past to be conserved, the other a past to be reconciled.

The Path Forward

Telling the dissatisfied to leave for another country is not a solution; it is an abdication of the democratic responsibility to engage with dissent. A nation’s strength is not tested when everyone agrees, but when it can navigate profound disagreement without fracturing.

The true challenge for America is to move beyond the simplistic builder/destroyer framework. It requires acknowledging that constructive criticism is a form of nation-building, and that preservation for its own sake can be a form of stagnation. It demands a conversation about what we are building *for*, and for *whom*. The goal cannot be merely to build more, but to build better—to create a society that is not just rich, but equitable; not just powerful, but just.

The American project was never meant to be finished. It is a perpetual argument, a constant and often painful negotiation between the world as it is and the world as it could be. The real work lies not in accusing the other side of wanting to “party in caves,” but in the difficult task of building a common ground where the ballroom is big enough for everyone, and the foundation is strong enough to hold us all.

#Ballroom #Whitehouse #EastWing #Trump

Obamacare Took Away Choice

 

Before Obamacare we had 3 types of options for healthcare. We had more choices. We had more Doctors. We had more Nurses. We Had more CNA's. We had more hospitals. Premiums have increased 400%.

Here we are 15 years later and the Government is shut down over Obamacare and ILLEGALS.

Why do people still think this current bunch of Democrats know how to Govern? They sure as hell shouldn't be in charge of Healthcare. Actually, other than Medicare and Medicaid the Government shouldn't be involved at all.

Of course. Here is an 800-word article written in a conservative manner, expanding on the points provided.

A Failing Prescription: Fifteen Years of Obamacare and the Case for Limited Government

Fifteen years ago, the American healthcare landscape was a different country. It was not a perfect system, but it was a system characterized by choice, competition, and a direct relationship between patients and their providers. Before the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, was signed into law, Americans primarily had three straightforward options for their healthcare: employer-sponsored insurance, individual private plans, or safety-net programs like Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly and most vulnerable.

This pre-Obamacare environment, for all its challenges, offered a diversity of pathways to care. Patients had more choices in the types of plans they could select. They had access to more doctors, more nurses, and more healthcare facilities. There was a palpable sense that the medical profession was driven by service and competition, not by federal mandates and reams of bureaucratic paperwork. The system was far from perfect, but its core mechanisms were rooted in the free market, where innovation thrives and the customer’s needs ultimately guide the service.

Today, that landscape is almost unrecognizable. The central promise of Obamacare—to lower costs and expand access—has proven to be a profound miscalculation. Instead of affordability, we have witnessed premiums skyrocket, with some analyses showing an increase of over 400% for many American families since the law’s implementation. Instead of more choice, we have seen insurance markets consolidate, with fewer carriers willing to participate in exchanges hamstrung by regulation. The doctor-patient relationship has been increasingly supplanted by a complex and often adversarial relationship with insurance bureaucrats and government administrators.

The consequences of this failed experiment are not merely abstract economic figures; they are felt in the daily lives of millions. Families face deductibles so high that their insurance becomes a catastrophic safety net rather than a tool for everyday health. Small business owners struggle with the burden of compliance, often forced to make difficult decisions between hiring new employees or providing mandated coverage. The very medical professionals who form the backbone of our system—our doctors, nurses, and certified nursing assistants (CNAs)—report record levels of burnout, drowning in administrative red tape that pulls them away from their primary mission: caring for patients.

And where has this grand government intervention led us? Here we are, a decade and a half later, watching our political process periodically seize up, with the federal government even facing shutdowns fueled by disputes over this very law and the ancillary crisis of illegal immigration. The fact that a single piece of legislation, one that was forced through Congress on a strictly partisan vote, continues to hold the nation’s governance hostage is a testament to its deeply flawed and divisive nature. It raises a fundamental question that every citizen must consider: Why do people still believe that the current cohort of Democratic leaders, who championed this system and continue to defend it, knows how to govern?

The evidence suggests they do not. Governance is not about imposing a one-size-fits-all solution from Washington, D.C. It is about fostering an environment where individual liberty, free enterprise, and personal responsibility can flourish. On healthcare, a sector that constitutes one-sixth of our nation’s economy and touches every single life, their approach has been the opposite. They have replaced choice with coercion, competition with control, and affordability with unaffordable mandates.

The truth is, aside from the vital, pre-existing safety-net programs of Medicare and Medicaid—which were designed for specific, vulnerable populations and are themselves in desperate need of modernization to prevent insolvency—the federal government has no business being the primary manager of American healthcare. Its role should be limited, focused on fostering transparent markets, encouraging interstate competition for insurance, and protecting against the worst abuses, not micromanaging every aspect of care from a distant capital.

The conservative vision for healthcare is not a return to a mythical past, but a path forward to a future that empowers patients, not politicians. It is a vision of Health Savings Accounts that put patients in control of their healthcare dollars. It is a vision of association health plans that allow small businesses to pool together to buy coverage at a competitive rate. It is a vision of price transparency, so patients can shop for care like they do for any other service. It is a vision where innovation in treatments and technology is accelerated, not stifled by the FDA’s slow approval process.

Fifteen years of Obamacare have given us a clear lesson: when the government takes over, choices vanish, costs explode, and the system becomes mired in political conflict. It is time to acknowledge this failure and embrace a humbler, more effective approach. The government should be a referee, ensuring a fair and open market, not the central player dictating the moves of every doctor and patient on the field. Our health, and our healthcare system, deserve far better.

#Obamacare #Healthcare

A Tale of Two Protests: Priorities and the Principle of Private Action

 

"Zuckerberg and META donated to the PRIVATE Ballroom fund. As a matter of fact the TWINS Zuckerberg stole FB from even donated to the Ballroom fund. IT'S PRIVATE MONEY, NOT YOUR MONEY.

The people complaining are the same people who thought Kamala Harris was gonna win the 2024 election ... Hahahaaaaaaaa"

A Tale of Two Protests: Priorities and the Principle of Private Action

In the grand theater of American political discourse, it is often the superficial spectacle that commands the most attention, while the foundational principles at stake are conveniently ignored. The recent consternation over a private citizen’s funding of a new ballroom is a case study in this very phenomenon. The outrage, loud and performative, is not merely misplaced; it is a revealing indicator of a deeper ideological schism over the role of the individual versus the state, and a telling expose of the modern Left’s priorities.

At its core, the controversy is bafflingly simple. A private individual, having earned their wealth through private enterprise, has chosen to allocate a portion of that wealth to a private construction project. This is the very embodiment of the American ideal: the freedom to enjoy the fruits of one's labor without undue interference. Yet, this act of private initiative has been met with a torrent of criticism from certain quarters, who seem to believe that the spending of private money is a matter of public referendum.

This reaction is not just an overreach; it is a fundamental rejection of the principles of a free society. The critics, in their fervor, are advocating for a world where individual choice is subordinate to a collective, state-sanctioned approval. They do not simply dislike the ballroom; they resent the very notion that a private citizen has the autonomy to do something of which they disapprove. Their mantra, though unspoken, is clear: "Your money is not truly your own. It is a communal resource, and we will dictate its proper use."

This stands in stark contrast to the practical and fiscal benefits of such private undertakings. For decades, the White House has faced a legitimate logistical challenge. Hosting large state dinners for foreign dignitaries often required the erection of elaborate temporary structures on the South Lawn. These endeavors were not merely logistical headaches; they were funded by the American taxpayer. The cost ran into the millions for a single event—millions of dollars extracted from the pockets of citizens to fund a government function.

The existence of a privately-funded, large-scale venue presents a pragmatic solution. It offers the potential for the White House to utilize a suitable space for its diplomatic and ceremonial duties without placing that financial burden on the public. From a conservative perspective, which champions fiscal responsibility and limited government, this is an unalloyed good. It is a prime example of how private enterprise and philanthropy can provide solutions that alleviate the strain on the public treasury. To oppose this is to advocate, whether wittingly or not, for the continued and unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer money.

This brings us to the most critical point: the jarring disparity in the allocation of public outrage. The same voices that muster such indignant fervor over a ballroom often fall into a curious silence, or even offer tacit justification, for genuinely destructive forces at work in our nation.

Where is their vocal condemnation for the organizations that openly espouse Marxist and socialist ideologies, ideologies historically and unequivocally linked to the suppression of individual liberty, the erosion of property rights, and the collapse of economic prosperity? Why is the energy directed at a building, rather than at the coordinated attacks on federal immigration enforcement agencies, which exist to uphold the rule of law and secure the nation’s borders? The rule of law is the bedrock of a functioning republic, and assaults upon its institutions should alarm every citizen.

Furthermore, the selective condemnation of political violence is telling. While a privately funded ballroom is painted as a moral crisis, the violent unrest that has periodically erupted under the banner of certain "no kings" protests often receives a different treatment. When businesses are looted, public property is destroyed, and communities are made to feel unsafe, these acts are frequently contextualized, rationalized, or even excused by the same political factions now decrying a piece of architecture. This is not a coincidence. It is a matter of ideological alignment. The ballroom represents private wealth and individual expression, concepts antithetical to their collectivist worldview. The violent protest, however chaotic, can be framed as a challenge to the established order they seek to dismantle.

In the end, the debate over the ballroom is about far more than a building. It is a proxy war over American values. It is a contest between those who believe in the freedom of the individual to act, build, and prosper without seeking permission from the state, and those who believe that such freedoms must be curtailed in the name of a nebulous and ever-shifting concept of social justice.

The conservative position is clear and consistent. We should celebrate private initiative, defend the right of individuals to dispose of their lawfully earned property as they see fit, and champion solutions that reduce the burden on the taxpayer. Our outrage should be reserved for the genuine threats to our republic: the forces that seek to undermine the rule of law, the ideologies that have brought misery to millions, and the violence that tears at our social fabric. To focus on a ballroom is to miss the forest for a single, beautifully constructed tree. It is a distraction from the real battles that will define the future of our nation.

#Ballroom #Zuckerberg #META #Whitehouse

Sick DEMOCRATS and Liberals

 

Sick DEMOCRATS and Liberals:

I just heard Mike Gallagher read an email he received. A couple from Georgia attended the Charlie Kirk service in Arizona. Their children sent them an email telling them they can't see their Grandchildren nor will they have contact with their parents.

THAT IS WHAT DEMOCRATS DO!!! THEY ARE SICK!!!

The Politics of Division: When Family Becomes a Battlefield

In the heated theater of modern American politics, a new and deeply personal front has opened, one where the casualties are not measured in votes but in fractured families. A recent anecdote, shared by commentator Charlie Kirk and echoed by Representative Mike Gallagher, has ignited a fresh wave of outrage. The story is simple, yet its implications are profound: a couple from Georgia, after attending a political event, received an email from their own children. The message was a devastating decree: they were cut off. No more visits with their grandchildren. No more contact. The reason, as the story was framed, was a stark political divide.

The immediate and explosive reaction to this story—labeling Democrats and liberals as “sick” for such actions—is a symptom of a much larger disease afflicting the nation. It is the reflexive instinct to weaponize personal pain for political point-scoring, turning a complex, intimate tragedy into a blunt instrument for the culture war. This reaction, while understandable in its raw emotion, misses the deeper, more troubling truth about what is happening to the American social fabric.

To lay the blame for this family’s heartbreak solely at the feet of an entire political party is to ignore the human dynamics at play. Family estrangement is not a policy platform; it is a painful, last-resort decision that typically stems from years of accumulating friction, fundamental disagreements over values, and an irreconcilable breakdown in communication. It is far more likely that this Georgia couple and their children had a relationship already strained by a widening chasm of beliefs, and the political event served as the final, symbolic breaking point.

The real sickness is not located in one party or the other, but in a political climate that encourages this very schism. We live in an era where political affiliation is no longer just about tax policy or foreign affairs; it has been fused with moral identity. To be on the “other side” is increasingly portrayed not as having a different opinion, but as being a bad person. Media ecosystems, on both the left and the right, often traffic in caricature, painting the opposition as not merely misguided, but as malevolent forces threatening the very soul of the country. When we are told daily that those who disagree with us are a threat to democracy, are racist, are “sick,” or are fascists, is it any wonder that these perceptions begin to poison our most personal relationships?

The children in this story are not likely acting as agents of a political party. They are almost certainly acting from a place of deep conviction, believing that their parents’ worldview is so incompatible with their own that it represents a danger—either ideological or emotional—to their children. This is a tragic miscalculation of the value of diverse thought within a family, but it is a miscalculation fueled by the very rhetoric that condemns them.

The path forward is not to double down on blame, but to recognize this story for what it is: a canary in the coal mine. When politics becomes so all-consuming that it severs the sacred bonds between grandparents and grandchildren, we have lost sight of what truly holds a society together. The solution lies not in louder condemnation, but in the quiet, courageous work of rebuilding civil discourse. It requires us to see the humanity in those we disagree with, to listen to understand rather than to rebut, and to reaffirm that the love of family can, and must, be a stronger force than the passions of politics.

Until we can separate a person’s political views from their core humanity, these stories will not be shocking anomalies. They will become the new, heartbreaking normal. The true sickness is the belief that a political victory is worth a family’s defeat.

#Politics #Division #Trump

The Whitehouse Ballroom

Party Time:

The people upset over the BALLROOM are a joke. It's private money. In the past the Whitehouse has had to spend Millions of tax dollars to host a State Dinner for dignitaries because they had to set up Tents, Tables, and Chairs on the Whitehouse lawn because the current Ballroom was never large enough. 

Those people complaining simply hate OTHER PEOPLE DOING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR OWN MONEY.

They should be more worried about who is funding the Marxist, Socialist, BLM, ICE ATTACKS, and the violent 'so called' No Kings protests.

A Tale of Two Protests: Priorities and the Principle of Private Action

In the grand theater of American political discourse, it is often the superficial spectacle that commands the most attention, while the foundational principles at stake are conveniently ignored. The recent consternation over a private citizen’s funding of a new ballroom is a case study in this very phenomenon. The outrage, loud and performative, is not merely misplaced; it is a revealing indicator of a deeper ideological schism over the role of the individual versus the state, and a telling expose of the modern Left’s priorities.

At its core, the controversy is bafflingly simple. A private individual, having earned their wealth through private enterprise, has chosen to allocate a portion of that wealth to a private construction project. This is the very embodiment of the American ideal: the freedom to enjoy the fruits of one's labor without undue interference. Yet, this act of private initiative has been met with a torrent of criticism from certain quarters, who seem to believe that the spending of private money is a matter of public referendum.

This reaction is not just an overreach; it is a fundamental rejection of the principles of a free society. The critics, in their fervor, are advocating for a world where individual choice is subordinate to a collective, state-sanctioned approval. They do not simply dislike the ballroom; they resent the very notion that a private citizen has the autonomy to do something of which they disapprove. Their mantra, though unspoken, is clear: "Your money is not truly your own. It is a communal resource, and we will dictate its proper use."

This stands in stark contrast to the practical and fiscal benefits of such private undertakings. For decades, the White House has faced a legitimate logistical challenge. Hosting large state dinners for foreign dignitaries often required the erection of elaborate temporary structures on the South Lawn. These endeavors were not merely logistical headaches; they were funded by the American taxpayer. The cost ran into the millions for a single event—millions of dollars extracted from the pockets of citizens to fund a government function.

The existence of a privately-funded, large-scale venue presents a pragmatic solution. It offers the potential for the White House to utilize a suitable space for its diplomatic and ceremonial duties without placing that financial burden on the public. From a conservative perspective, which champions fiscal responsibility and limited government, this is an unalloyed good. It is a prime example of how private enterprise and philanthropy can provide solutions that alleviate the strain on the public treasury. To oppose this is to advocate, whether wittingly or not, for the continued and unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer money.

This brings us to the most critical point: the jarring disparity in the allocation of public outrage. The same voices that muster such indignant fervor over a ballroom often fall into a curious silence, or even offer tacit justification, for genuinely destructive forces at work in our nation.

Where is their vocal condemnation for the organizations that openly espouse Marxist and socialist ideologies, ideologies historically and unequivocally linked to the suppression of individual liberty, the erosion of property rights, and the collapse of economic prosperity? Why is the energy directed at a building, rather than at the coordinated attacks on federal immigration enforcement agencies, which exist to uphold the rule of law and secure the nation’s borders? The rule of law is the bedrock of a functioning republic, and assaults upon its institutions should alarm every citizen.

Furthermore, the selective condemnation of political violence is telling. While a privately funded ballroom is painted as a moral crisis, the violent unrest that has periodically erupted under the banner of certain "no kings" protests often receives a different treatment. When businesses are looted, public property is destroyed, and communities are made to feel unsafe, these acts are frequently contextualized, rationalized, or even excused by the same political factions now decrying a piece of architecture. This is not a coincidence. It is a matter of ideological alignment. The ballroom represents private wealth and individual expression, concepts antithetical to their collectivist worldview. The violent protest, however chaotic, can be framed as a challenge to the established order they seek to dismantle.

In the end, the debate over the ballroom is about far more than a building. It is a proxy war over American values. It is a contest between those who believe in the freedom of the individual to act, build, and prosper without seeking permission from the state, and those who believe that such freedoms must be curtailed in the name of a nebulous and ever-shifting concept of social justice.

The conservative position is clear and consistent. We should celebrate private initiative, defend the right of individuals to dispose of their lawfully earned property as they see fit, and champion solutions that reduce the burden on the taxpayer. Our outrage should be reserved for the genuine threats to our republic: the forces that seek to undermine the rule of law, the ideologies that have brought misery to millions, and the violence that tears at our social fabric. To focus on a ballroom is to miss the forest for a single, beautifully constructed tree. It is a distraction from the real battles that will define the future of our nation.

#Ballroom #Whitehouse #Trump

Illinois Uses ILLEGALS To Pump Up Tourism and Revenue Numbere

The JB Pritzker Story: He Said It Out Loud

JB Pritzker, the Governor of Illinois, let it out of the bag. The claim to be a sanctuary state. Chicago is a sanctuary city. Illinois set aside hotels, warehouses, and community centers to house ILLEGALS. Remember, the Pritzkers own 64 NGOs. The NGOs get money from Soros donor types and the Government. So, now JB Pritzker is bragging about how much 'tourism' and 'revenue' Illinois has had. It's all a scam. The ILLEGALS are just pawns for money.

He actually said it out loud ...

BTW, When his Sister was Biden’s Commerce Secretary she bought up foreclosed buildings and filled them with Section 8 for it pays more ... Democrats claim rich should pay 'fair shair' ... the Pritzker family were born Billionaires, however, JB Pritzker bought a mansion next door to his so no one would live there, then he ripped all of the bathrooms to reduce the value from 6 million to 1 million. It saved him 300K in taxes  That's why the IRS is investigating him.

#JBPRITZKER #Chicago #ILLEGALS #Illinois

The Whitehouse Ballroom

 

They're crying over Trump adding a ballroom to the Whitehouse. STOP IT!

This is a rundown of what other Presidents did:

"Presidents have added significant structures and features to the White House, such as the West Wing by Theodore Roosevelt and the East Wing by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Other notable additions include the North Portico built by Andrew Jackson, the Rose Garden created under John F. Kennedy, and a press briefing room developed by Richard Nixon. During Harry Truman's presidency, a major renovation involved gutting and rebuilding the entire interior, adding a balcony to the South Portico. More recently, Donald Trump is overseeing the construction of a new ballroom and has overseen other projects like a tennis pavilion and a new building for the grandchildren's garden."

#Whitehouse #Trump #Ballroom

Evacuation ordered on Utah State campus amid preparations for Turning Point USA event

Evacuation ordered on Utah State campus amid preparations for Turning Point USA event

---

by Megan Brugger, KUTV

Tue, September 30, 2025 at 2:52 PM

Updated Tue, September 30, 2025 at 3:57 PM

#CharlieKirk #Charlie #Kirk #TurningPoint

The Government Shutdown Will Be The Democrats' Fault

 

The Government is about to shut down. It basically will shut down over health care.

Democrats are demanding free health care for ILLEGALS. YOU gotta pay.

Since the passing of Obamacare premiums have increased 400%. We have 50% less Doctors. We have 50% less Nurses. We have 50% less Hospitals. We also have 50% less Insurance Companies. Doctors are forced to see less patients because it takes 1 hour and 48 minutes to see and CODE a patient. Less patients means less care.

Democrats are simply in the pockets of big pharma. They don't care about you.

#GovernmentShutDown #Obamacare

A System in Crisis: The High Stakes of Healthcare in the Government Shutdown Standoff

As the specter of a government shutdown looms, the political battle lines are drawn with familiar, fiery rhetoric. At the heart of the impasse, one side argues, is an issue of fundamental fairness and a healthcare system pushed to the breaking point. The central claim is stark: Democrats are holding the government hostage to demand free healthcare for undocumented immigrants, a burden that would fall squarely on the shoulders of American taxpayers. This charge, however, is merely the flashpoint in a much larger narrative about the perceived catastrophic failure of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, and the systemic decay its critics believe it has caused.

The accusation that Democrats are advocating for "free health care for ILLEGALS" is a potent political weapon. It taps into deep-seated concerns about immigration, national resources, and fiscal responsibility. The argument posits that while American citizens struggle with rising costs, it is an affront to prioritize non-citizens who have entered the country unlawfully. This framing casts the debate not just as a policy disagreement, but as a matter of national loyalty and equitable distribution of public funds. Proponents of this view argue that providing such benefits acts as a "pull factor," encouraging more illegal immigration and further straining an already fragile system. In the high-stakes game of a government shutdown, this issue becomes a non-negotiable red line for those who see it as a symbol of misplaced priorities.

To understand the depth of this resistance, one must look at the broader context of the post-Obamacare landscape as described by its critics. The claim that "since the passing of Obamacare premiums have increased 400%" is a dramatic indictment. While the exact percentage can be debated depending on the timeframe and plan type (individual market vs. employer-sponsored), it is true that many Americans, particularly those buying insurance on their own, have experienced significant premium increases since the law's implementation. Critics argue that the ACA’s essential health benefits requirements and regulations, while well-intentioned to provide comprehensive coverage, eliminated cheaper, catastrophic plans and drove up costs for healthier individuals. This has led to a scenario where, for some, insurance has become less affordable than before the law was passed, despite subsidies designed to help lower-income households.

The statistics presented about a 50% reduction in doctors, nurses, hospitals, and insurance companies paint a picture of a medical industry in precipitous decline. These figures are significant exaggerations of reality but reflect a genuine sense of contraction and strain. While the number of licensed physicians and registered nurses in the U.S. has actually increased in absolute terms since 2010, the perception of a shortage is not unfounded. The issue is often one of distribution (rural areas have far fewer providers) and burnout. The ACA aimed to insure millions more people, increasing demand for services without a corresponding immediate increase in supply of providers, leading to longer wait times and the feeling of a system stretched thin.

The claim about a 50% reduction in hospitals is not supported by data from the American Hospital Association, which shows a much more gradual and modest decline, primarily among rural facilities, a trend predating the ACA. Similarly, the claim about insurance companies is nuanced. While consolidation has occurred, and some smaller insurers left the marketplaces, the major players have largely remained. The point, however, is that critics see a system that is less competitive and more bureaucratic.

Perhaps the most insightful claim from a frontline perspective is that "doctors are forced to see less patients because it takes 1 hour and 48 minutes to see and CODE a patient." This gets to the heart of a critical issue in modern medicine: administrative burden. The coding referred to is the complex system of ICD-10 codes used for billing insurance companies. The ACA, with its emphasis on electronic health records and quality metrics, significantly increased this paperwork burden. Doctors and their staff spend immense amounts of time documenting every aspect of a patient visit to justify billing and avoid audits, rather than focusing purely on patient care. This administrative bloat leads to physician burnout and reduces the number of patients a practice can see in a day. The consequence, as stated, is that "less patients means less care," creating access problems even for those who have insurance.

The final, sweeping accusation is that "Democrats are simply in the pockets of big pharma." This sentiment fuels the belief that the entire political debate is corrupt. The pharmaceutical industry does indeed wield enormous lobbying power and contributes significant funds to both political parties, though often in different proportions depending on the election cycle. The failure to effectively address soaring drug costs through major legislation has reinforced the view for many that politicians are beholden to special interests rather than the constituents they serve. In this narrative, the push for policies like expanding healthcare coverage to undocumented immigrants is not about compassion but about funneling more public money into a system controlled by powerful corporate entities.

In conclusion, the government shutdown threat over healthcare is not a simple political stunt. It is the eruption of long-simmering grievances about the direction of American healthcare. For the critics of the Affordable Care Act, the system is characterized by skyrocketing costs, a shrinking and overburdened provider network, and a political class that prioritizes non-citizens and corporate interests over struggling American families. Whether one agrees with this assessment or not, it represents a powerful and deeply held worldview that continues to shape the nation’s most contentious policy debates. The battle over a government shutdown is merely the latest symptom of a much deeper diagnosis of a system believed by many to be in critical condition.

Jimmy Kimmel Won't Be Everywhere

 

They won't be seeing Jimmy [WHO] Kimmel ...

Copied and Pasted - I Stole It ...

"Sinclair owns or operates over 30 ABC affiliate stations, including well-known examples like WJLA-TV in Washington, D.C., KATV in Little Rock, AR, and WEAR-TV in Pensacola, FL. The exact number of Sinclair's ABC affiliates is 38, with the company owning the largest number of ABC affiliate stations of any station group. 

Here are some of the ABC stations owned or operated by Sinclair: 

WJLA-TV: (Washington, D.C.)

KATV: (Little Rock, AR)

WBMA-LD: (Birmingham, AL)

WEAR-TV: (Pensacola, FL)

KRCR-TV: (Redding, CA)

KAEF-TV: (Eureka, CA)

WGXA: (Macon, GA)

WSYX: (Columbus, OH)

Key details:

Largest Owner: Sinclair is the largest owner of ABC affiliates in the United States, according to The Hollywood Reporter. 

Impact: Sinclair's large holdings mean they are a major player in the carriage of ABC Network programming, and the company has made news recently for pre-empting Jimmy Kimmel's show on its ABC affiliates."

#ABC #JimmyKimmel #Disney

There Is No Age Issue For Donald Trump

 

There Is No Age Issue For Donald Trump

"This man is 79 years old.

Most men his age are slowing down, retiring, or living out their days in comfort.

But not him.

He works until two in the morning, often running on only four hours of sleep.

While others his age are enjoying their golden years, he is carrying the weight of an entire nation on his shoulders.

He doesn’t take a salary.

Every single quarter, he gives it away to causes that serve the American people.

He could be cashing in for billions, because let’s be honest, he already proved he knows how to build, create, and succeed in business.

He had the empire.

He had the fame.

He had the wealth.

And he walked away from it all.

Why?

Because he loves this country more than he loves comfort.

Because he sees freedom slipping away.

Because he sees liberty under attack.

Because he sees YOU and ME, ordinary Americans, being ignored, silenced, and pushed aside by the elites who only care about themselves.

So he makes the choice most people wouldn’t dare to make.

He leaves behind his private life, his family’s quiet peace, his businesses, and even his own safety.

He steps into the storm.

And since that moment, he endures endless attacks, fake investigations, lies, betrayals, and hatred from those who despise the idea of a President who actually fights for the people instead of the swamp.

And yet, he never quits.

He never bends the knee to the globalists, the media, or the political class.

He stands firm, not just for his own name, but for the promise of America itself.

He fights for secure borders.

He is winning on trade.

He fights to bring back jobs, rebuild manufacturing, and restore strength to our military.

He fights to give Americans hope again.

And still today, while others rest, he works late into the night.

He sacrifices sleep, comfort, and ease because his mission isn’t finished.

His mission is to protect freedom.

His mission is to secure liberty.

His mission is to put America first.

This is not the story of an ordinary politician.

This is the story of a man chosen for this moment in history.

His name is Donald J. Trump.

He is the 45th and 47th President of the United States.

And no matter how hard they try, no matter what they throw at him, no matter how many obstacles they place in his path, he remains OUR President.

Thank God he is in the White House.

Thank God we have a fighter.

Thank God we have Donald J. Trump!"

#Trump #Biden

There Is No Age Issue For Donald Trump as President

In the relentless churn of the 2024 election cycle, one narrative has been pushed with particular vigor by the left and its media allies: the age and fitness of the candidates. This focus, however, is applied with a glaring and politically motivated double standard. While questions about President Joe Biden’s cognitive sharpness are met with defensiveness or dismissed as ageism, similar inquiries about Donald Trump are amplified into a central campaign issue. The truth that this narrative obscures is a simple one: there is no meaningful age issue for Donald Trump. The relevant metric is not the number of years one has lived, but the vitality, energy, and clarity of thought one possesses—qualities Trump demonstrates in abundance.

To compare the public presentations of Donald Trump and Joe Biden is to witness a study in contrasts that has nothing to do with birth certificates. President Biden often appears hesitant, frequently relying on notecards for simple interactions and struggling with coherence in unscripted moments. His physical gait is cautious, and his energy level seems deliberately managed. These are observations, not insults; they are legitimate concerns about the capacity to execute the most demanding job on earth.

Donald Trump, meanwhile, projects an image of relentless vigor. His rallies are marathon events, often lasting well over an hour, filled with vigorous gesticulation and a forceful, extemporaneous speaking style. He engages in rapid-fire debates, navigates complex legal and political challenges simultaneously, and maintains a schedule that would exhaust many individuals half his age. This is not the picture of a man diminished by time, but of a fighter operating at the peak of his powers. The liberal fixation on his age is a transparent attempt to find a neutral-sounding cudgel to beat him with, precisely because they cannot argue against the successes of his first term or the potency of his America First message.

The conservative case for Trump has never been about the man’s age, but about the enduring power of his ideas and his record. Voters are not looking for a youthful face; they are looking for a leader who will restore strength at home and abroad. They remember the Trump administration not through a filter of birthdays, but through tangible results: a booming pre-pandemic economy, energy independence, secure borders, and a world where American adversaries thought twice before testing our resolve. These are the issues that matter. Age is a superficial distraction from the substantive debate over policy direction. Do we want a return to the failed policies of the Obama-Biden era, which have led to inflation, open borders, and global instability, or do we want a return to the proven policies that worked for all Americans?

Furthermore, the conservative perspective values wisdom and experience, assets that are honed over a lifetime. Donald Trump’s age brings with it a wealth of experience from outside the political swamp. He is a businessman, a negotiator, and a political outsider who successfully took on the Washington establishment. This seasoned perspective is an asset, not a liability. He is not a career politician who has spent decades being shaped by the corrupting influences of Capitol Hill; he is a patriot who entered public life later, with a fully formed worldview focused on American interests. His age signifies a lifetime of achievement and a freedom from the need to conform to political correctness—a quality that resonates with millions of Americans tired of cookie-cutter politicians.

Ultimately, the “age issue” is a hollow construct, a last resort for a political movement that finds itself on the wrong side of every policy debate that matters to everyday Americans. When they talk about kitchen-table issues—the cost of groceries, the safety of their neighborhoods, the quality of their children’s education—the age of the candidate is irrelevant. What is relevant is the candidate’s vision, his track record, and his fighting spirit.

The American people are wise enough to see through this media-manufactured controversy. They can distinguish between chronological age and effective leadership. They see a current president who seems weary and overwhelmed by the world, and they see a former president bursting with the energy and determination to fix the problems that have multiplied in his absence. The question in 2024 is not who is older or younger; the question is who is stronger, who is sharper, and who has the will to lead. On every count that truly matters, Donald Trump proves that there is no age issue—only a leadership issue, and he is the clear and obvious solution.

Beyond the Guilt: A Conservative Call for Principled Action in a World Scarred by Slavery

 

Beyond the Guilt: A Conservative Call for Principled Action in a World Scarred by Slavery

The explosive online declaration, "EVERY COUNTRY HAS HAD SLAVERY!!! SOME STILL DO!!! SHOULD WE CONQUER THE WORLD?!?!" is more than just internet hyperbole. It is a raw, unfiltered expression of a sentiment felt by many who observe the current state of our national discourse. It reflects a deep frustration with a narrative that seems to singularly focus on America’s historical sins while ignoring both the global context of human bondage and the pressing evils that persist today. From a conservative perspective, this isn’t a call for apathy, but for a more clear-eyed, principled, and effective approach to human dignity—one rooted in truth, national strength, and the power of our example, not self-flagellating conquest.

The historical facts presented are undeniable and crucial for an honest conversation. The institution of slavery was not an American invention; it is a tragic, near-universal chapter in human history. The detailed account of Korea’s *nobi* system, which endured for over a millennium with up to 40% of the population enslaved, is a stark reminder. So too are the ancient slave markets of Mesopotamia, the prolonged horrors of the Arab slave trade, and the entrenched serfdom of Eastern Europe. This global perspective is not, as some might charge, an attempt to "whatabout" our own history or minimize the profound injustice of transatlantic chattel slavery. Rather, it is a necessary corrective to a modern progressive narrative that paints America as uniquely evil.

This narrative is not only ahistorical but also counterproductive. By isolating American history as a unique moral catastrophe, it fosters national self-loathing and division. It teaches our children to see their country’s founding not as a flawed but revolutionary step toward liberty, but as an irredeemable original sin. This mindset paralyzes us. It suggests that our nation is so inherently corrupt that it must be fundamentally deconstructed, rather than proudfully improved upon. Conservatism, in contrast, understands that a nation, like an individual, cannot strive for a better future if it is taught to despise its past. Acknowledging the full, global context of slavery allows us to properly contextualize our own history—to condemn the evil unequivocally while still honoring the incredible progress and the heroes who fought to end it.

The second part of the statement—"SOME STILL DO!!!"—points us toward where our moral outrage should be focused today: on present-tense evil. The situation in Mauritania is a chilling testament to the fact that slavery is not merely a historical relic. Despite being officially outlawed, hereditary slavery persists with the complicity of the state. Human beings are still born into bondage, considered property, and trapped by a brutal caste system. This is not a legacy issue; it is a current, ongoing atrocity.

Herein lies the conservative answer to "SHOULD WE CONQUER THE WORLD?!" The answer is a resounding no. Conquest and neo-colonialism are not the tools of a strong and confident nation; they are the failed strategies of empires. They drain national treasure, cost American lives, and often create more instability and suffering. The conservative foreign policy approach is not one of isolationism, but of principled realism and leadership.

So what does that leadership look like in the face of modern slavery?

First, it requires a foreign policy driven by moral clarity, not moral relativism. We must use our immense diplomatic power to name and shame regimes like Mauritania. This means tying foreign aid, trade agreements, and international standing to verifiable, measurable progress in eradicating these practices. Our voice on the world stage must be a consistent and powerful advocate for human liberty.

Second, we must leverage our economic might. Sanctions targeted specifically at the elites and officials who benefit from or turn a blind eye to modern slavery can be a powerful tool. We can lead international coalitions to freeze assets and restrict travel for those complicit in these crimes.

Third, and most importantly, we must lead by the power of our example. America’s greatest export is not its military might but its ideal of liberty. We combat global slavery by being a shining city on a hill—a testament to what a free, prosperous, and multi-ethnic society can achieve. This means strengthening our own nation at home: securing our borders to fight human trafficking networks that operate globally, promoting economic policies that create prosperity and lift all boats, and upholding the rule of law which is the ultimate bulwark against tyranny.

A nation consumed with deconstructing itself, debating whether its core principles are a lie, and teaching its citizens to be ashamed of their heritage has no moral authority to lead anyone. A nation that is confident in its values, proud of its progress, and steadfast in its commitment to justice and liberty does.

The online cry of frustration is understandable. It rejects a guilt-based narrative that seeks to paralyze America in the past. But conservatism does not reject the fight for human dignity; it seeks to reframe it on terms that are both honest and effective. We must study the full history of slavery to understand the dark depths of human nature, not to score points. We must confront modern slavery with the fierce resolve of a nation that believes in its own foundational ideals. Our mission is not to conquer the world, but to lead it—through strength, principle, and the unwavering belief that the promise of freedom is the most powerful force for good this world has ever known. That is a cause worthy of a great nation.

EVERY COUNTRY HAS HAD SLAVERY!!! SOME STILL DO!!! SHOULD WE CONQUER THE WORLD?!?!

Which country had the longest slavery in the world?

"While many cultures and civilizations have long histories of slavery, Korea is often cited for having one of the longest, most enduring, and institutionally embedded systems of slavery, with an unbroken chain lasting for centuries, characterized by the nobi class. The institution of slavery in Korea existed for well over a thousand years, with a significant portion of the population being enslaved at various times, only gradually abolished by the late 19th century. 

Key aspects of Korean slavery:

A distinct class system: Slavery was a well-defined and accepted social status for centuries, with slaves (nobi) being considered property that could be bought, sold, inherited, and gifted. 

Long-term institution: Unlike some other forms of forced labor, the system of Korean slavery had a remarkably long and stable existence, with scholars referring to it as an "unbroken chain". 

Economic significance: The economy in Chosŏn Korea was heavily dependent on enslaved labor, with the slave population reaching as high as 30-40% of the total population at certain times. 

Late abolition: While slavery was present in various forms from antiquity, the institution persisted through the Koryŏ and Chosŏn dynasties, with abolition finally occurring in the late 19th century, particularly in 1894. 

Other contexts for lengthy histories of slavery:

Ancient Civilizations: The concept of slavery is seen to have emerged with the very first civilizations, such as those in Mesopotamia around 3500 BC. 

Middle East/North Africa: The Red Sea slave trade, which moved Africans into the Arab world, was a very long-enduring trade, lasting from antiquity until the mid-20th century. 

Eastern Europe: Serfdom, a form of tied labor similar to slavery, was a long-standing institution in Eastern Europe, especially in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Russia, lasting for several centuries."

Can You Still Buy A Slave In Africa?

"No [Not Legally], it is not possible to legally buy a person in Mauritania or anywhere else in the world, as slavery is banned everywhere. However, modern slavery, particularly hereditary or descent-based slavery, is a persistent and entrenched issue in Mauritania despite official bans. 

Legality vs. reality in Mauritania

Illegal status: Slavery was officially abolished in Mauritania in 1981, the last country in the world to do so. It has since been criminalized multiple times, most recently in 2015, with laws imposing prison sentences on slaveholders.

Lack of enforcement: Despite these laws, enforcement is notoriously poor, and perpetrators are rarely prosecuted. Activists report that government officials often deny the existence of slavery and sometimes even encourage victims to withdraw their complaints.

Persistent practice: Human rights organizations and the U.S. State Department confirm that the practice continues, especially in remote areas. It primarily affects the Haratine ethnic group, whose slave status has been passed down for generations. 

How modern slavery functions in Mauritania

Unlike historic open-air slave markets, the practice today is more hidden and operates within a deep-seated caste system. 

Hereditary control: People are typically born into slavery and considered the property of their "masters" for life. This status is passed down from mother to child.

Economic dependence: Many who are freed remain dependent on their former masters due to extreme poverty, lack of education, and widespread discrimination.

Trafficking and exploitation: Human trafficking also occurs, with reports of traffickers exploiting victims for forced labor or sexual exploitation. 

International recognition and condemnation

International reports consistently place Mauritania among the countries with the highest prevalence of modern slavery.

The U.S. State Department and other international bodies have repeatedly called for stronger action and criticized Mauritanian officials for their complicity and lack of political will to end the practice."

#Slavery #Africa

Charlie Kirk suspect linked to crime scene by DNA, says FBI chief

Charlie Kirk suspect linked to crime scene by DNA, says FBI chief

#CharlieKirk #KashPatel #Utah

What Is TranTifa?

 What Is TranTifa?

"Trantifa" is a pejorative term used by some, particularly in a controversial May 2025 protest, to describe a pro-LGBTQ+ and pro-trans rights group that confronted counter-protesters with a conservative Christian group at Seattle's City Hall. This confrontation resulted in tensions, clashes with police, and arrests, and the term has been associated with efforts to label these pro-LGBTQ+ groups negatively. 

#Trans #TranTifa

The Context of "Trantifa" 

"Trantifa" as a derogatory term: 

The term appears to be a portmanteau of "trans" and "Antifa," used to associate trans rights advocates with the loosely organized anti-fascist movement.

• May 2025 Seattle Protests: 

  In May 2025, a conservative Christian group rallied at Seattle City Hall, leading to a confrontation with pro-LGBTQ+ counter-protesters who were concerned about their views on trans rights and abortion.
• Clashes and arrests: 

  The situation escalated, resulting in clashes and 8 arrests, with some pro-LGBTQ+ counter-protesters expressing concern about being targeted by police, according to one report.
• FBI investigation: 

  The FBI began investigating allegations of targeted violence against religious groups following the protests.

Key takeaways 

The term "trantifa" was not a self-applied name but was used by some to frame a group of pro-trans rights protesters in Seattle.

• The term emerged during a May 2025 demonstration at Seattle City Hall involving counter-protesters and a conservative Christian group, leading to arrests and a federal investigation.

A religious group is set to protest outside Seattle City Hall. Here's why

#Trans #Antifa #Trantifa

What Is Fascism?

 WHAT IS FASCISM?

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology defined by a dictatorial leader, forced suppression of opposition, militarism, and a strong belief in a natural social hierarchy. It rose to prominence in 20th-century Europe and is fundamentally opposed to democratic liberalism, communism, and socialism. 

Core characteristics of fascism

While different fascist movements throughout history have had their own nuances, historians and scholars have identified several key shared characteristics: 

Ultrananationalism and the "rebirth" myth: Fascism emphasizes extreme nationalism, often tied to a "palingenetic" myth of national rebirth. This involves presenting a narrative of the nation's past greatness, claiming it has fallen into a state of decline or decadence, and promising to restore it to glory.

• Authoritarian and dictatorial leadership: Fascist states are typically one-party, totalitarian states with power centralized under a single, charismatic leader. A personality cult is often built around this leader, who is presented as embodying the will of the nation.
• Militarism and violence: Fascism glorifies military power and warfare as a means of national rejuvenation and expansion. Violence is often celebrated as a redemptive or purifying force and is used to suppress opposition and advance national goals.
• Suppression of opposition: Fascist regimes systematically suppress all forms of opposition, including political opponents, dissenters, and minorities. They control the media and use violence and intimidation to eliminate any perceived threats to national unity.
• Scapegoating: Fascist movements commonly use scapegoats to unite the population against a perceived enemy, often blaming specific groups (such as ethnic or racial minorities, immigrants, or political opponents) for the nation's problems.
• Hierarchical social structure: Fascism promotes the idea of an inescapable social hierarchy and views human inequality as natural. It demands that individual interests and rights be subordinated to the perceived good of the nation or race.
• State-directed economy: Fascism operates a dirigiste economy, where the state plays a strong, directive role in economic interventions. While not abolishing private property like communism, it forces cooperation between businesses and workers to serve nationalistic goals and achieve economic self-sufficiency (autarky). 
• Key examples in history

• Benito Mussolini's Italy: The term "fascism" comes from the Italian fascio (bundle), referencing the ancient Roman symbol of authority, the fasces. Mussolini founded the National Fascist Party in 1921 and seized power through the March on Rome in 1922.
• Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany: Nazism is a radical, racially-focused variant of fascism that was centered on the concept of Aryan supremacy. The Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler, rose to power in 1933 and pursued a genocidal and imperialistic agenda.
• Francisco Franco's Spain: With support from fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, Franco's fascist forces defeated a democratically elected government in the Spanish Civil War. 
• Evolving interpretations and modern usage

Since World War II, few parties openly use the term "fascist," but it is often used pejoratively by political opponents. The term can be difficult to define precisely, and modern-day movements that draw inspiration from historical fascism are often referred to as "neo-fascist". These movements often use similar tactics, such as extreme nationalism, scapegoating, and anti-immigrant rhetoric. 

#Fascism #Fascist