Ronald was barely a year into his presidency when the press started running the same story on repeat. Reagan’s budget cuts were going to devastate black America. His policies were designed, they insisted, to help the rich at the expense of the poor. There was just one problem. Thomas Sowell had actually looked at the numbers, and the numbers told a completely different story.

Watch the video above around the 1:50 mark.

On a 1981 episode of Meet the Press, a host pressed Sowell directly, framing Reagan’s cuts as an assault on black progress that had supposedly been built entirely on government programs and affirmative action. Sowell didn’t take the bait. He calmly noted that people are naturally apprehensive about losing anything, because they see the loss immediately and can’t yet see the broader economic benefit. Then he went furthe and dismantled the entire premise behind the question.

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases. Right now, for a limited countdown to the midterms, new annual subscribers get 77 percent off their first year.

Get 77% off for 1 year

Here’s what should stop you cold. The host insisted that affirmative action had driven major black economic progress over the prior seventeen years. Sowell flatly disagreed, and he had the receipts. Puerto Rican income had fallen from 60 percent of the national average down to 50 percent. Mexican-American income dropped from 76 percent to 73 percent. Black income, overall, had barely moved from where it already stood before affirmative action existed. The only group actually rising were blacks who already had education and job experience. Everyone else was falling further behind.

Why did an entire industry keep repeating a story the data didn’t support?

Reagan, Minimum Wage, and the Story Nobody Wanted

The segment on black teenage unemployment lands even harder today. A different host confronted Sowell with a staggering statistic under the Reagan administration, more than half of black teenagers out of work. Sowell agreed the number was shattering, then explained exactly why it had gotten that bad. Minimum wage coverage had expanded dramatically since 1950, and the wage floor itself kept climbing. The math was brutally simple. You cannot force an employer to pay someone more. You can only make it illegal to pay them less, and if the employer refuses, that worker gets nothing instead of something.

Sowell’s proposed fix wasn’t complicated either. Repeal the law where possible. Exempt teenagers where it isn’t. At minimum, create a lower entry wage so young workers can actually get on the ladder, because nobody rises up a ladder they were never allowed to step onto.

The Press Had the Facts. They Chose the Narrative.

This is the pattern that should make conservative voters furious heading into November. Sowell wasn’t offering opinions dressed up as facts. He was pointing reporters directly to public records, Gallup polling, and government statistics that flatly contradicted the story they’d already decided to tell about Reagan’s America. He noted that the same small handful of self-appointed black leaders kept appearing on air, saying things that Gallup polling showed the actual black population didn’t believe, on issues ranging from crime policy to the death penalty.

That’s not journalism. That’s stagecraft.

Four decades later, the same media apparatus is running the identical playbook against a new set of conservative policies, a new administration, and a new round of midterm elections. The talking points barely changed. Only the year did.

Sowell’s entire legacy boils down to one instruction that should terrify any journalist relying on a comfortable narrative.

Check the source yourself. Don’t trust the summary. The press ignored that advice with Reagan in 1981, and they’re still ignoring it now.

Get 77% off for 1 year

A lake. A name. And somehow Kathy Hochul turned it into a referendum on whether New York stands with America or with the country that has been ripping it off on trade for decades.

President Trump did not hold back after Governor Hochul rejected his plan to rename Lake Ontario, formally announcing she would keep siding with the old name over the new one. Stupid Governor Kathy Hochul, who doesn’t care about New York State, has announced that she is on the side of Canada, Trump wrote, which has been ripping us off for decades on Trade and Tariffs.

Upgrade your subscription to Right Flank to support conservative values.

Get 77% off for 1 year

She Picked A Side. It Was Not America’s.

Trump’s post did not mince words, and it should not have. She doesn’t want us to use the name, “Lake America,” she’d rather have Canada get a win. That’s the problem with Governor Hochul, and many other Dumocrats. She allows other Countries and States to take advantage of New York, which gets treated like garbage.

Is that really such an unfair read of the situation? A governor was handed a simple, patriotic gesture, a rename honoring America instead of the old designation, and she chose the old one instead. Why exactly does Kathy Hochul think Canada deserves that win more than her own state does?

Hochul’s Response Says It All

Hochul did not exactly help her own case when she responded. I’m speechless, she said. It is so patently absurd. Shame on them for deflecting from the real needs that Americans are feeling here in New York, the high cost of energy, prescription drugs, utility bills, groceries. And this is what the president spends his time on? Renaming a lake that was named after our indigenous peoples? Shame on you.

Notice the sleight of hand there.

Hochul wants to talk about energy costs and grocery prices, real concerns, sure, but she is the one who made this a headline story by rejecting a simple name change and turning it into a full press conference moment. Nobody forced her to hold a news event about a lake. She chose to.

Weak And Ineffective, Exactly As Described

Trump’s explanation for why Canada specifically targeted Hochul’s state cuts right to the point. They’re aiming at her because they consider her Weak and Ineffective, he wrote. Not nice, sure, but is it wrong? New York has spent years getting outmaneuvered on trade while other states held their ground.

There is a reason Trump pointed straight to Bruce Blakeman as the fix. He’s an “animal,” he fights like hell, he doesn’t let anyone else win. He’s for the people. He’s smart and cunning, and will Lower your Taxes, and Stop Crime, Trump said, throwing his full support behind Blakeman as the next governor of New York.

The Bigger Point Underneath The Lake Name

Strip away the jokes about the lake for a second. The real question is simple. Should the leader of one of America’s biggest states side with a foreign country over her own president on something this small?

If Hochul cannot get behind a symbolic gesture this minor, what confidence should New Yorkers actually have that she will fight for them on the things that matter far more, tariffs, trade, energy costs, all the issues she claims to care so much about?

New Yorkers deserve a governor who picks their side first. Right now, they do not have one..

Get 77% off for 1 year

Start with the asylum system, because it’s the front door most illegal immigration walked through for over a decade. In 2012, the United States received about 19,000 asylum applications. By 2024, that number had exploded to 3.18 million, an increase of more than 16,000 percent according to UNHCR data. That was never a sign of a healthier world. It was a sign of a system anyone could walk into and use as a formality, and everybody paying attention knew it.

Now watch what’s happening to those claims once they actually reach a judge. Immigration courts are denying close to 80 percent of asylum applications today, up from roughly 50 percent just a few years ago, according to Syracuse University’s TRAC data. That’s not a rounding error. That’s the system finally being asked to distinguish real persecution from a form filled out at the border. Conservative commentator Wilfred Reilly went further recently, saying it’s an open secret among left-leaning immigration lawyers themselves that somewhere between 90 and 95 percent of asylum claims are fake. Whether the true number lands exactly there or somewhat lower, the direction of travel is the same: a system that spent a decade rubber-stamping claims is now actually checking them, and the claims aren’t holding up.

That brings us to deportations, and this is where Benny Johnson has been doing some of the most useful reporting anyone’s put out this year.

Johnson said a senior DHS official told him ICE removed more than 27,000 people in a single week, averaging roughly 3,600 a day and tracking toward 1.4 million removals for the year, with more than 69,000 people currently sitting in DHS custody waiting on deportation. His source described the operational style bluntly: plainclothes, unannounced, no media circus, just people going home. That pace would put this administration on track to shatter the modern deportation record, and it’s exactly the kind of number the corporate press has had almost nothing to say about.

Isn’t that exactly what the people who voted for stricter enforcement were promised?

Johnson’s source went further, telling him blue state governors, facing mounting political and financial costs from the illegal population in their own cities, are quietly letting sheriffs and police chiefs hand people off to ICE without the public fights that defined the last few years. Housing, healthcare, and school costs tied to illegal immigration hit blue-state ledgers the hardest, and it was never realistic to expect every Democrat mayor to keep picking that fight forever once the bill came due.

None of this requires guesswork about the border itself. Illegal crossings have collapsed compared to the historic surge years, and the same data underlying that asylum chart shows exactly where the pressure came from. An asylum system that grew 167-fold in twelve years wasn’t screening for persecution. It was functioning as an entry ramp, and both the claims data and the deportation numbers now point the same direction: closing it.

Say what you want about the messaging war around all this. The underlying numbers, the ones nobody’s spinning, are the real story. A court system finally rejecting the overwhelming majority of asylum claims. A detention population near 70,000. Hundreds of thousands removed with months still left on the clock. That’s not a talking point. That’s a country that decided to enforce its own laws again.

And what does happen when millions of young men buy into a warped version of self-discipline from a man whose life screams excess instead of discipline?

The Shawn Ryan Show asked that question for their audience today using a recent Daily Stoic piece examining the massive cultural footprint of Tate.

Timing could not be worse. Young men are confused enough right now. And influencers such as Tate are providing these young men a false guide.

Become a paid subscriber for the entire archives and early access.

TATE PHENOM EXPOSED

Tate did not find stoicism; he plundered it. He stole the words of stoicism; removed the parts about duty and constraint and put the remainder back together again as permission to pursue money, women and status without regret. This isn’t old wisdom. This is new grift with better video quality.

This results in a group of young men quoting Epictetus while they live like Caligula on social media. Emotional repression is treated as strength, and perpetual self promotion is called philosophy. True stoicism required remaining silent under pressure. Tate’s requires continued performance and continuous public approval. The distance between the two demonstrates why so many followers continue to feel empty after adhering to all the rules.

STOIC BRANDING VERSUS ACTUAL CHARACTER

Daily Stoics’ analysis examines how Tate utilized timelessness to gain exposure. That realization goes farther than many people think. When you begin to use stoicism as a marketing tactic rather than a personal mantra, it will no longer produce men, it will produce clicks.

Many of the young men purchasing this product are not being made easier to take advantage of by those who follow behind with similar formulas and newer videos. They are being created as softer targets for each new guru that promises the exact same recipe but with fresh thumbnails.

Why do so many want to hand over their conscience to some guy who continues to get involved in various types of trouble around the world?

Subscribe now

Read more

Some of our most fundamental resources—such as time—are being used as additional instruments of control.

It wasn’t an accident that we are caught in this daily grind. When federal agencies grow in power and influence, companies use employee’s compliance processes as leverage to ensure continued employment.

And when social media outlets flood every available screen with outrage cycles, people trade away hours of time each day for pre-written scripts of what they should do to survive that were created by others.

As recently stated in a Daily Stoic article that was posted by Shawn Ryan Show — the majority of people give up significant amounts of their lives to jobs that never cease and to distractions that never fill them.

That isn’t cultural drift.

So, what is it?

Subscribe now

Read more

Get 77% off for 1 year

Glenn Beck’s take on the Flock camera uprising cuts through the noise faster than almost anyone else’s. In a widely shared statement, Beck warned that taking a crowbar to a license plate reader “might make for a viral video,” but the victory is an illusion. The city replaces the camera. The vandalism becomes the justification for even tighter surveillance and an even bigger budget line. Beck’s answer isn’t sabotage. It’s policy. As he put it, if Americans actually want to roll back the growing surveillance state, “we have to tear down the policy.”

The Glenn Beck portion of the video above starts at the four-minute mark.

That distinction matters more than almost anything else in this fight, and conservatives ought to be the ones making it loudest.

Here’s what’s actually happened this summer. Flock Safety has planted more than 120,000 automated license plate readers across the country, feeding a searchable national database that thousands of law enforcement agencies can query, often without a warrant. In Winona, Minnesota, someone cut all eight of the town’s cameras down in a single weekend. In West Virginia, a young man is facing two felonies for allegedly doing the same thing near Morgantown. City after city — Duluth, Columbia Heights, Fort Collins, Madison, Knoxville, Syracuse — has started ripping up its Flock contracts entirely. This is not a fringe reaction. It’s a bipartisan revolt, and it’s happening because the Fourth Amendment doesn’t come with an expiration date just because the technology got better.

Isn’t it telling that it’s Republicans leading a lot of this pushback, not just the usual privacy activists on the left?

Get 77% off for 1 year

West Virginia’s own Freedom Caucus is pushing legislation to ban the cameras statewide. Indiana’s lieutenant governor, Micah Beckwith, has said flatly that he doesn’t want government “in the business of mass surveillance,” and he’s now working with state lawmakers on limits. Knox County, Tennessee, Mayor Glenn Jacobs called the technology “a very dire threat to our privacy” and demanded a nationwide pause until real constitutional guardrails exist. These aren’t civil liberties lawyers. These are elected conservatives who looked at a system that logs a citizen’s every movement, on public roads, with no probable cause and no warrant, and decided that’s not a trade-off a free country should be making.

That’s the real conservative case here, and it has nothing to do with excusing property crime.

Let’s be blunt about that part. Destroying government equipment is a felony, full stop, and the people who’ve been arrested for it are going to face real consequences — $15,000 bonds, criminal records, the whole weight of the justice system. That’s not activism. That’s a crime, and it accomplishes nothing except handing Flock and every pro-surveillance politician in the country a sympathetic headline about “vandals” instead of a headline about the Fourth Amendment. Conservatives believe in the rule of law. That applies here too, no exceptions for a cause you like.

But the instinct underneath the crowbar is exactly right, and it deserves a real outlet.

This is what a genuine social credit system looks like in its infancy — not a single dramatic announcement, but one reasonable-sounding camera at a time, one database at a time, until the government has a permanent, searchable record of where every car in the country has been. China didn’t build its surveillance state overnight either. It built it exactly this way, one public-safety justification at a time.

So skip the pole and go to the podium instead. Show up at your city council meeting. Demand your sheriff answer, on the record, who has access to the plate data and how long it’s kept. Push for state legislation that requires a warrant before that database gets searched, the way the Fourth Amendment already promises. Winona’s police department just chose not to replace its stolen cameras at all, saying the technology had “contributed to growing concerns about trust in policing.” That’s proof the political route works. It doesn’t require a felony charge to get there.

Get 77% off for 1 year

Do you really think that these outlets, which have been shoving russia-gate down our throats for years and denying lab-leaks, and mandating vaccines; now lecturing everyone else on what constitutes truth?

Subscribe now

Read more

Whether those tyrants sit behind a desk in Washington or peddle victimhood through their screens, it does not matter.

The Stoic Advantage in a Culture of Manufactured Outrage

Daily Stoic contributor Shawn Ryan recently published an excerpt from his recent contribution that cuts right through the noise. The lesson he teaches is very simple and brutally effective: do not waste time controlling things you cannot control; let the rest go up in flames.

This one concept detonates like a hand grenade within a culture obsessed with outrage at all times. Modern Americans are told nearly daily how much value their existence holds based upon external approval from the government, social media “likes”, or government welfare checks.

But why? And why are these Americans facing such a harsh wrath?

Subscribe now

Read more

For decades companies have polluted our water sources. And government regulatory bodies have either turned a blind eye or actively enabled the corruption.

The anger builds up when we see the same pattern continue without consequences. Ordinary people who live in America suffer the costs of living in a country with contaminated homes and damaged health. This is not some remote scandal.

It is happening now by an administration that claims to be protecting us but has chosen to serve large corporate interests.

The Lie Machine Still Running

These companies didn’t just accidentally cause these problems. They evaluated the risks, hid the evidence they knew about the contamination and expected a lax regulatory body to allow them to avoid serious repercussions.

Brockovich’s video shows clearly that internal company documents revealed that each of the companies was aware of the presence of toxins but told the public (and/or investors) otherwise.

It is particularly maddening when this cycle of deceit continues into the present day. New chemical spills and new oil spills occur every week. While fines are assessed against companies responsible for the spills and the executives involved go unpunished for their actions.

Regulatory agencies work as shields, not as watchdogs. Capture is rampant in regulatory agencies. Former industry players often enter into enforcement positions in regulatory agencies. Once inside these agencies, they realize quickly that there are many limitations on what they can do.

There are many who believe one of the most astute observations ever made regarding the current situation is that the biggest protection racket is not just corporations.

What’s the real scam?

Subscribe now

Read more

At the beginning of the 21st century, the British elite protected large, organized networks of rapists who sexually exploited tens of thousands of very vulnerable girls, at the time.

Simultaneously, institutions including law enforcement agencies and news organizations worked to suppress this truth.

This is not some long-forgotten historical footnote; rather, it is a contemporary indictment of how progressive values enabled massive-scale sex trafficking and child sexual assault throughout several U.K. cities.

Why do we see such a vast difference in how much outrage exists regarding a single financier’s decades-long series of heinous sex crimes versus no similar level of outrage regarding organized networks of sex predators called “grooming gangs” in the UK?

Read more

A decade-long campaign by the political left to suppress open debate and discussion in America has ultimately provided a form of vindication.

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr., someone clearly outside mainstream conservative circles, publicly identifies Elon Musk as the individual responsible for protecting and preserving free speech in America, the unmistakable pattern of suppressing dissenting viewpoints through all means necessary including through tech censorship cannot be ignored.

Musk’s purchase of what was once referred to as Twitter (now X) reopened access to basic information suppressed by voices aligned with the U.S. Government.

This type of vindication holds significant weight due to its origin coming from someone outside of the traditional conservative base.

In stark comparison are the ongoing efforts by many members of the Democratic Party. As part of their radical left agenda, they began pushing coordinated efforts on major tech platforms to reduce visibility and limit the reach of viewpoints that dissented with their own views.

What’s the hidden agenda? It’s revealed below for subscribers.

Read more

Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan were arrested by U.S. Marshals in Miami this weekend, pulled from a bare-knuckle boxing event on a sealed warrant tied to a UK extradition request. Hours earlier, British prosecutors had expanded the criminal case against them to fifty nine total charges, including rape, human trafficking, and offenses involving indecent images of a child.

Become a paid subscriber for the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

Tate didn’t build his massive online following by being liked. He built it by being deliberately, calculatedly infuriating, saying the most outrageous thing he could find in order to get people to comment, argue, and share the clip out of disbelief. That’s not a fringe theory about his strategy. It’s the actual engagement model, and it worked exactly as designed, flooding his content across platforms through millions of people hate-watching a man who was never trying to convince them of anything. He was trying to get a reaction.

What He Actually Said

Look at the pattern in his own words rather than the persona built around them. Tate has claimed that a woman’s value could be reduced to a number written on her forehead. He’s said depression isn’t real and that people struggling with it should simply change their circumstances. He’s posted that sleeping soundly through the night is “overtly homosexual.”

He took that same formula even further with a post declaring, “Being impressed by a woman’s beauty is super gay.” He later expanded the bit, arguing that any man who has sex with a woman purely because it feels good, rather than strictly to produce children, is gay as well. The internet mocked the post relentlessly, and Tate responded to the ridicule with a laughing emoji, all but confirming what critics had said about his strategy for years. The outrage was the product. Getting people angry enough to share it was the business model.

That’s the actual mechanism behind Tate’s reach. Not persuasion, not a coherent worldview, but a deliberate cycle of manufactured provocation designed to keep his name circulating through algorithms that reward engagement regardless of whether that engagement comes from admiration or contempt.

The Pattern Extends Into How He’s Handled Every Legal Problem

That same instinct for manipulation shows up in how Tate has responded to actual legal scrutiny. After his 2022 arrest in Romania on trafficking and rape allegations, his first public reaction wasn’t to address the accusations. It was to declare that “the Matrix” had attacked him, reframing a criminal investigation as a conspiracy against a free thinker being silenced for speaking uncomfortable truths.

That framing has been remarkably durable, and it reveals the same underlying playbook as his social media posts. Rather than engage honestly with evidence or accusations, Tate consistently reframes scrutiny as proof of his own importance, turning legitimate legal proceedings into content that keeps his followers engaged and his critics arguing, which in turn keeps his name trending.

The Charges Are Not a Bit

This weekend’s expanded UK case now covers seven alleged victims and offenses spanning 2010 to 2017. Bedfordshire Police, which has led the investigation, stated plainly this week that there is no place for male violence against women and girls and that officers will keep pursuing every report made to them. Assistant Chief Constable Karena Thomas confirmed investigators have worked closely with prosecutors and international law enforcement throughout the case.

Andrew Tate now faces forty two individual charges. Tristan Tate faces seventeen. Both are expected to make their first court appearance in the Southern District of Florida early next week, and both continue to deny all wrongdoing across the UK, US, and Romanian cases.

What Happens Next

The brothers still face separate, ongoing criminal proceedings in Romania involving allegations of rape, human trafficking, and forming a criminal gang to exploit women, charges that must be resolved before any formal extradition to the UK can proceed under the arrangement Romanian courts approved in 2024. This weekend’s arrest adds a new layer to that timeline, placing the brothers back in U.S. custody while British prosecutors push forward with the expanded charges.

For years, Tate’s entire public identity was built on manufactured outrage designed to spread faster than anyone could fact-check it. Fifty nine charges across two countries and seven alleged victims don’t spread the same way a provocative tweet does. They sit in a courtroom, waiting to be proven or disproven on evidence rather than engagement metrics.

Simultaneously, institutions including law enforcement agencies and news organizations worked to suppress this truth. This is not some long-forgotten historical footnote; rather, it is a contemporary indictment of how progressive values enabled massive-scale sex trafficking and child sexual assault throughout several U.K. cities.

Read more

The last confrontation on current events between Cenk Uygur and Ben Shapiro offered no surprises. As is customary, Uygur’s constant interruptions and tired talking points were met by Shapiro’s unflappable responses that remained focused and factual.

Uygur came prepared with his traditional progressive wish list, however, each time he attempted to transition into a high-minded moralistic lecture it quickly unraveled under even minimal examination.

One could almost hear the wheels turning in the heads of viewers watching this debacle as Uygur cycled through tired tropes that had previously gained traction in echo chambers.

It is easy to mock when progressives continue to treat Shapiro as if loudness and indignation will somehow replace substance.

Where have the progressives gone wrong? It’s explained below for subscribers.

Read more

In fact, Clinton reacted to the mention of her name as though it was overdue validation, rather than simply another form of empty, shallow political theater.

This isn’t about achieving peace; it’s about a permanent ruling class giving themselves trophies while burning down the country.

The clip circulating on X shows her visibly pleased at being interrupted during a conversation to be able to react (with visible satisfaction) to what she perceived as confirmation of her stature, above that of accountable citizens.

Her reaction further adds to the outrage that develops when one considers both the timing and her audience. Even today, establishment members continue to reward one another for failures that have resulted in loss of life and freedom.

Why do we continue to pretend that these self-congratulatory elite ceremonies are reflective of true service to our great nation?

Read more

Two people have recently become the faces of hope for many on the left or so suggests a recent X post that laughed and used emojis after making a very pointed and sarcastic claim. These two congresswomen represent the extreme edges of progressive politics, not broad appeal.

That particular X post resonated with people in part because it encapsulated just how far some parts of the Democratic Party’s base have moved.

It is one thing to point to politicians who may be able to restore some level of trust with working Americans; however, this particular pair of politicians have repeatedly been associated with harsh criticisms of Israel, numerous run-ins with their own party leaders and a number of news stories which energized one segment of the American population while alienating another.

Records also demonstrate that both women have been the subject of ethics inquiries and primary challenges which reflect the fact that they do not reach much further than the activist circles that are their base.

The question remains as to whether party strategists actually think elevating the kinds of voices represented by Reps. Omar and Tlaib will reverse the downward trend of support for Democrats among certain important demographic groups, or if they plan on deepening the chasms that currently exist between those groups.

This represents a larger shift toward moving fringe positions into the center of debate. We break down the flaws of Omar and Tlaib as potential party-rescuers below for our subscribers.

Read more

Here, we have an easy-to-see example of how far the measuring sticks have shifted, showing us exactly how the rules for leading our youth have changed.

The viral “logic puzzle” that has been circulating online creates a stark difference between two groups of people who say they are teachers. They state that there are numerous individuals sporting green or blue hair (and therefore calling themselves teachers) and then note that Matt Walsh does not wear either of those colors.

The puzzle’s conclusion directly states that Matt Walsh cannot be a teacher and invites everyone to prove him wrong. The above type of thinking seems funny, but it shows just how much of a change there has been in how some see authority in the classroom.

Subscribers receive access to paid content that examines flashpoints in culture and society including the one described in this piece.

Read more

When you realize one of the most well-known events in American civil rights history may have been manipulated and staged for a specific reaction from judges in court, your perspective shifts.

Matt Walsh echoed the sentiment recently on X, providing an overview of how civil rights leaders deliberately positioned Rosa Parks for a test case that would go to trial.

It was not a chance meeting of Rosa Parks and the driver of a city bus. Instead, it was part of a plan that included much careful planning.

Dig deep and you will find that the detailed analysis of this particular instance reveals a larger trend in controlling narratives, and thus, shaping public opinion long after a given event has occurred.

As noted above, the decision made by Rosa Parks to refuse to move to another seat on a Montgomery, Alabama city bus took place on December 1st, 1955. However, that’s the kernel of truth we’ve been given. What really happened is detailed below for subscribers.

Read more

In an interview recently released in a popular video, a politician and critic are questioning how deep accountability can go in Washington, DC.

What if the very officials that enforce the law now find themselves at risk for being prosecuted under it?

JD Vance said in that popular video, “Ilhan Omar could be arrested for fraud,” which was a comment made in response to numerous questions about her background and the statements she has made.

It has fueled much of the debate about whether there is really anyone left in Congress that cannot be scrutinized.

For readers wanting the full story behind this most current example of politics’ fast-paced controversy we will provide you with the entire record of the event along with relevant information via a paid subscription.

Read more

What good is a loud voice from the conservative spotlight if the ballot shows otherwise?

Those who took to endorsing candidates including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly, Joe Kent, Shawn Ryan, and Marjorie Taylor Greene thought that would give them the momentum needed.

But the vote totals say something else; those high-profile endorsements appear to have lessened the value of their endorsement and increased the divide between media personalities and average citizens.

It is happening again and again in recent election cycles. Candidates receive endorsements from prominent figures, media outlets cover the news of these endorsements, but ultimately there is no increase in voting participation; and often times the opposite occurs.

Do celebrity voices really matter as much as most assume? The debate is fleshed out below for subscribers.

Read more