This Sub has Rules and Guides like Reddit has Rules and Guides.

You are expected to follow Them.

• You should read and understand all of the Rules.
• You should read and try hard to follow Rule #4
• You should read and understand Rule #6
• All Internal Comment Filters are set to Max Settings just short of going Flair Only and or Private. Learn about Comment Filtering in the Reddit Help Files.
• All installed Apps are set the same.
• All Rules, Guides and Apps are here to help internally guide This Sub.

This Sub does NOT care about Your Feelings. Period. Full Stop!

Your continued Membership depends on You alone!

The Bad News is You get to choose.

The Good News is You still get to choose.

Choose wisely. Have a Nice Day!

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has offered a detailed explanation and a fresh apology after the Instagram account of the No Kings movement was suspended for several hours during nationwide rallies for suspicious behavior driven by AI usage. Leftists including Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who were silent for more than a decade of Meta censoring conservatives suddenly are expressing alarm about censorship.

Business Insider reports that the No Kings account was locked and administrators were denied access during Saturday’s “day of action,” when the nonpartisan network said it held nearly 3,000 rallies across the country. The demonstrations were meant to push voters to cast ballots early, a hedge against what organizers describe as efforts to undermine turnout.

Meta initially said the shutdown happened “in error” because of an automatic trigger, but didn’t offer a fuller account until a day later. Meta spokesperson Andy Stone laid out what happened in a post on X, saying the company’s engineering team traced the problem to unusual activity on the account. “Our engineering team discovered that the spike that triggered the incorrect enforcement was primarily in the account’s ‘reading’ behavior,” Stone wrote.

He said the trouble began with a surge in automated-looking activity. “Specifically, our network security systems detected the use of a Claude tool reading profiles, posts, and hashtags, the rate of which sharply increased (~4x volume) in intense bursts on October 17,” Stone wrote. That activity resembled bot traffic, so the system took the account offline.

The account came back fairly quickly on its own. “An automated re-review of the removal action an hour later recognized that shouldn’t have happened and restored the account,” Stone wrote. But the group’s administrators stayed locked out longer. “It unfortunately took additional time for us to straighten out the situation with admin access to the IG account,” he said.

Stone closed with an apology. “We want to reiterate our sincere apology for the error,” he wrote. Meta’s effusive apology and technical explanation stands in stark contrast to its past history of censoring conservatives with little or not explanation.

Homeland Security chief Markwayne Mullin will soon review a plan to expand worksite inspections, White House border czar Tom Homan said Sunday.

“I know the worksite enforcement plan just cleared last week out of HSI [Homeland Security Investigations] because I asked for the plan,” Homan told Fox News. He added:

I think the gentlemen I brought in did a tremendous job. A lot of it is focusing on not just worksite enforcement, but those who use fraudulent IDs to steal your Social Security numbers. We’ll prosecute them.

And for employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens, it’s not just about arresting aliens. It’s about holding employers accountable so they don’t try employing illegal aliens.

So I think we’ll move quickly on that. I just saw the draft from HSI last week, so I think the secretary will probably see it this week or next week. And I’m all for it.

Homan’s comments are a rare look inside the differences of opinion within the Trump administration.

Many top officials, as well as President Donald Trump, zig-zag forward between rival interest groups within the Republican party, including business donors and populist voters.

Immigration politics are tough, Trump told a roomful of Latino allies on September 30. “Because they’ll say ‘You’re too tough,’ or ‘You’re too soft.’ ‘Get tougher!’ ‘Get softer!’ No matter what you do, it’s always tough.”

He added, “We have to have the votes.”

Socialized medicine or Medicare is a big government parasite sucking every dollar you pay in taxes into its own interest

By Patrick Wagner, MD, October 19, 2026 7:24 am

Depending on who you ask, Medicare has several different meanings. This fact has huge implications, as we are about to find out at the November 3, 2026 election process.

Here is my definition of Medicare. It is government welfare, plain and simple. And more specifically, it is supposed to be only for our seniors, age 65 and above. What is all this business of “Medicare for All” as specified by Xavier Becerra in his candidacy for governor? When and why did government bureaucrats start talking this way? Becerra claims he did it 30 years ago when he became a legislator at the California state assembly – Becerra is a fibber. Not only is Medicare NOT “for all” YET, but it is a disguised medical program called socialized medicine, through and through. It is taxation of income and redistribution of a small amount of that yield to the people of the United States age 65 and older in the name of medical care insurance. You and I have been sorely deceived because what is really going on is legalized theft! And we are rapidly finding out via DOGE that most of this harvest has been siphoned off into NGO’s and non-profits so we will never have the opportunity to retrieve much of it.

Medicare is a very touchy subject for our California seniors, and a very worrisome subject for those approaching Medicare age. I remember back in those days when Obamacare was being passed, about 2009, shortly after I hung it up as a Sacramento surgeon, when I became thoroughly fed up with Medicare. I joined the Tea Party, a large group of baby boomers and seniors who were adamantly against Obamacare. Obamacare passed and the Tea Party fizzled out. Hopefully some of you reading this remember what a letdown that was.

What I found out in talking with seniors about Medicare in those days was that they were “ALL IN” for Medicare but as above, vehemently against Obamacare. They believed that Medicare was special, because Medicare was different from Medi-Cal and Obamacare. They saw Medi-Cal for what it truly was and is, namely bureaucratic welfare fraud. Those seniors didn’t want to be likened to bureaucratic welfare fraud, because they were decent. I don’t blame them for that.

To think that our out-of-control government would disable lazy, able-bodied, able-minded opportunistic gnomes (or hobbits as John McCain would mockingly call Tea Party Patriots in 2011, a year before John Roberts found Obamacare “constitutional” and six years before McCain voted for more Obamacare in 2017) and pay them tax dollars as INSTRUMENTS of their bureaucrat folly.

And who was and still is the disabler? It’s the reprobate licensed California physician who went to the dark side for a substantial profit and deemed these people medically disabled and introduced them into the welfare system for the bureaucrat case worker machinery and ambulance chasing lawyers to really get the ball rolling. Do you blame those recipients of Medi-Cal benefits? I don’t. Who’s going to turn down free stuff?

And those reprobate licensed California physicians? They are losers! They have absolutely no social skills and could never cut it in private practice. They are envious, small, evil people and their hearts are rock hard. That’s why they are where they are.

This paper wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t add a paper by an author named Jim Karger, posted July 5, 2012, called “American Medical Care Is Terminal”. It seems legitimate. I found it in one of those free newspaper boxes in front of a “Mr. Pickle” sandwich shop in Auburn. Great lunch, by the way. This paper never got out there into mainstream media. Whether you believe it or not, I think it’s a pretty good representation of California in the present day. Even the arithmetic looks pretty good to me. From my experience in being paid by Medicare, I don’t think he is fibbing in the least.

Democrats have been unusually mask-off heading into midterm election season, trying to get voters to believe it’s “moderate” to accept Islamist communism because of high gas prices. The latest foreboding reveal came from Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin over the weekend.

She bird-handed the formerly subtextual part on camera: “I wanna look at these signature cases and not just focus on the president but on the people who enabled him. I want young people coming out of school to say, ‘Should I go work for the Trump administration? Like, that sounds fun, I might get an opportunity.’ I want them to be like, ‘[Anti-Christian blasphemy], that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want, so let me avoid participating in that.’ I want that deterrence message.”

It took six years just to find out that Democrats already did exactly this to well more than half a million Republicans and hundreds of conservative nonprofit and political organizations under the pretext of investigating President Donald Trump and anyone who might adhere to conservative wrongthink who stepped foot in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021. It was called Arctic Frost.

The abuses already uncovered are catastrophic to public trust, which America needs to continue to function as a self-governing republic. Among the most prominent are evidence that prosecutor Jack Smith’s legal hit team knew they were violating the Constitution by secretly obtaining the private communications of sitting senators, yet they did so, then lied to Congress about it for years — so far with complete impunity.

If current Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune doesn’t at the very least censure Slotkin for openly committing herself to continued unconstitutional abuses of power, he supports a repeat of all this. It’s that simple.

Slotkin openly sat there in the context of horrifying Arctic Frost revelations by Thune’s colleagues such as Sen. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, which also directly affected dozens of his congressional caucus, and affirmed her party plans to continue subverting Congress and elections with a prosecutorial police state run by psychologically disturbed totalitarians. Committing oneself to the erasure of basic constitutional speech and association protections is definitionally and fundamentally un-American.

It’s horrifying Thune and other Republican leaders have not seen fit to ensure punishments for this behavior already. Worse than horrifying, their flaccidity ensures the Democrat outrages will continue and expand.

In the wake of an explosive government report revealing that the largest banks in the U.S. disproportionately canceled banking services for dozens of conservative and Christian organizations during the Biden years, outcry is growing for increased government oversight and regulations to ensure Americans are no longer refused basic financial services for exercising First Amendment-protected religious freedom and free speech rights.

The report, released on Wednesday by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), examined the nation’s nine largest banks, finding that all nine had policies that denied or limited the “access to financial services to Americans because of their political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities” between 2020 and September 2025. The report noted that a number of banks cited the Biden administration’s policies disfavoring the firearms industry and private prisons as reasons for suspending banking services to such clients.

For the second week in a row, Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a statement regarding the denial of review that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Sotomayor’s opinion in O’Donnell v. City of Chicago, a challenge to the city’s policy of seizing and selling (without any compensation to the owners) cars owned by drivers with as few as two unpaid parking tickets, was part of a list of orders from the Supreme Court’s Oct. 16 conference released on Monday morning. (The two cases in which the justices granted review are covered in separate stories.)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit rejected the challenge to the policy, calling it “an exercise of the City’s police power to enforce its traffic code.” Ryan O’Donnell and Michael Goree, two motorists whose cars the city sold, then came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in.

In a brief order, the court denied review. In her statement, Sotomayor expressed “serious concerns about” the 7th Circuit’s decision, but she emphasized that the court should not take up the question until more courts of appeals have had a chance to consider it. Moreover, she suggested, O’Donnell and Goree’s case was not necessarily an appropriate one in which to consider the constitutionality of such a scheme, because they had challenged the entire ordinance, “which might require this Court to invalidate even those features of the law that have nothing to do with vehicle forfeiture.”

The justices turned down, without comment, petitions for review in several high-profile cases, including two – Mohammad v. United States and bin ‘Atash v. United States – filed by (among others) Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who is considered to be the “mastermind” behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and others involved in the planning of those attacks. As Kelsey Dallas explained last month, the men had sought to reinstate plea agreements that they entered into more than two years ago, after spending nearly two decades in Guantanamo Bay, that would allow them to plead guilty but avoid the death penalty in exchange for life sentences. Following this, however, Lloyd Austin, then the Secretary of Defense, announced that he had the ultimate power to decide whether such agreements were appropriate, and sought to withdraw the government’s consent. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with the government that it could do so, and that the agreements were not binding, the men came to the Supreme Court, which on Monday denied their requests to weigh in.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate in Mohammad’s case.

The court also denied a petition for review filed by Gwynne Wilcox, who served on the National Labor Relations Board until President Donald Trump attempted to fire her shortly after his second inauguration. Under the federal law governing the removal of NLRB members, Trump could only fire her for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office” – neither of which Trump alleged had occurred. The lower courts initially ordered the Trump administration to reinstate Wilcox, but in May 2025, the Supreme Court paused those rulings and cleared the way for Wilcox’s removal while litigation continued.

In December 2025, the D.C. Circuit held that the for-cause removal provision violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. “Congress,” Judge Gregory Katsas wrote for the majority, “cannot restrict the President’s ability to remove NLRB … members” because they “wield substantial executive power.”

Wilcox came to the Supreme Court in June, asking the justices to take up her case, but on Monday they declined to do so.

Citing the lack of a quorum – that is, the minimum number of members required to vote – the justices left in place a ruling in a copyright dispute between several major music companies and a songwriter. Four justices – Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson – recused themselves from the dispute, presumably because one of the companies involved is owned by the parent company of Penguin Random House, which has published books by each of those justices.

The Supreme Court sought the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, in which that state’s attorney general has asked the justices to weigh in on a challenge to the constitutionality of an Iowa law that makes it a crime to be present in the state after having illegally reentered the United States. There is no deadline for the solicitor general to file his brief, although he is likely to do so sometime next year.

The justices did not act on a group of redistricting cases out of Alabama; they also did not rule on a petition for review asking them to decide whether a car is always a tool of interstate commerce, so that its use in a kidnapping automatically makes the crime a federal one.

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument early next year in Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education, a challenge to the process that a Maryland county uses to determine who will be admitted to a group of highly selective public magnet schools. The challengers, a group of mostly Asian-American parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, which is located just outside Washington, D.C., argue that although the policy does not on its face take race into account, it is nonetheless unconstitutional because it was intended to reduce the number of Asian-American students in those schools. The announcement came on a list of orders from the justices’ Oct. 16 conference and two years after the court turned down similar challenges, one involving Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in northern Virginia, which is regarded as one of the country’s top high schools, and another involving three of Boston’s elite public high schools.

The lawsuit was first filed in 2020 by the Association for Education Fairness, an organization of “concerned Asian-American parents in Montgomery County.” It alleged that the admissions process recently put into place, which was intended in part to increase enrollment of Black and Hispanic students at four highly selected magnet middle schools, violated the constitutional rights of Asian-American students. That policy, among other things, involved screening all fifth graders for possible admission (rather than only those whose parents asked for them to be included), eliminating teacher recommendations, and comparing students with their peers at their local schools.

Beginning in 2021-22, the county adopted a new policy. All fifth graders who met a series of criteria – including grades, reading level, and standardized test scores – were placed in a pool, from which students were selected by lottery for admission to magnet programs. The parent association then amended its complaint to argue that the new policy, sometimes nicknamed the Pandemic Plan because of when it was adopted, intentionally discriminates against Asian-American students.

The school board filed a motion to dismiss the case, which U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis granted. The parent association and the school board, she said, agree that, on its face, the Pandemic Plan is a “neutral admissions process that MCPS has applied evenhandedly.” Moreover, she continued, the parent association “does not meaningfully contest that the Pandemic Plan is rationally related to MCPS’ legitimate purposes.” The parent group’s claim can only go forward, she wrote, if the facts of its complaint “make plausible that the Pandemic Plan both” had a disproportionate effect on Asian-American students and “was motivated by discriminatory intent.” But she could not, she concluded, “see how the Pandemic Plan visited a disproportionate burden on Asian American students when the percentage of admitted Asian American students so substantially outpaces the percentage representation among all applicants.”

In a brief opinion in February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld Xinis’ ruling. The parent association then came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in. It contended that the courts of appeals are divided (a key factor that the justices consider in deciding whether to grant review) over whether a case, like theirs, alleging intentional discrimination in violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of fair treatment can go forward without allegations that the admissions policy has a disproportionate effect on students of a particular race. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, in which the majority held the use of affirmative action in college admissions to be unconstitutional, the parent group argued that “[i]f ‘[e]liminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,’ this cannot stand.”

The school board urged the Supreme Court to deny review. It portrayed the dispute as “unremarkable and of little significance,” emphasizing that it “involves a race-neutral lottery adopted in response to a global pandemic” and that “the proportion of Asian Americans among selected students actually increased at the two other magnet schools in the same year, under the same policy.”

In a brief order on Monday morning, the justices agreed to take up the case and to decide “[w]hether a plaintiff challenging a facially neutral admissions policy as racially discriminatory must establish that the targeted racial group suffered an aggregate disparate impact relative to its share of the applicant pool.”

The Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in on the constitutionality of an 1868 federal law that imposes a tax on distilled spirits but also bans home distilleries – that is, the at-home production of spirits like bourbon and whiskey. The penalties for violating the law include fines of up to $10,000, five years in prison, or both. In a list of orders from the justices’ Oct. 16 conference, the court announced that it had granted review in Department of Justice v. McNutt.

The justices will likely hear oral argument in the case early next year, with a decision to follow by late June or early July.

The lawsuit was filed in 2023 by a nonprofit, the Hobby Distillers Association, and some of its individual members, who want to be able to operate home distilleries. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the ban on home distilleries violates two different provisions of the Constitution: the taxation clause, which gives Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes … to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”; and the necessary and proper clause, which gives Congress the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its listed powers.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose a tax on distilled spirits, the 5th Circuit determined, but it concluded that the ban on home distilleries exceeds that power. Not only does the ban not raise revenue, the court of appeals wrote, it prevents the production of spirits that could generate revenue. The court of appeals similarly rejected the government’s contention that the ban guards against tax evasion, explaining that “preventing activity lest it give rise to tax evasion places no limit whatsoever on Congress’s power under the taxation clause.”

The federal government came to the Supreme Court in August, asking the justices to weigh in. It contended that “[a] law is necessary and proper if it is ‘convenient’ or ‘useful’ for carrying an enumerated power into effect, and ‘plainly adapted’ to that legitimate end.” That is precisely what the ban on home distilleries does, the government argued. “Congress restricted home distilling because a distiller can more easily conceal a distilling operation or thwart necessary inspections—thereby evading the requisite tax—if the still is located in” a house or a structure attached to that house.

The challengers agreed that the court should grant review, although they urged the justices to leave the 5th Circuit’s ruling in place. The case, they said, “presents fundamental questions of the extent of federal power and the powers reserved to the states and the people.”

In a separate case, Ream v. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion from the 5th Circuit, holding that the ban on home distilleries is a necessary and proper exercise of Congress’s power to collect the federal tax on distilled spirits. John Ream, a retired aerospace engineer and the owner of a brewery who wants to be able to distill his own spirits, then came to the Supreme Court in July, asking the justices to weigh in on the legality of the ban and on the broader question of Congress’ power to regulate “local, noncommercial conduct.”

The federal government agreed that the justices should take up the question at the center of Ream’s petition for review, but it urged the court to grant its own petition, in McNutt, instead. On Monday, the justices did just that.

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider outlawing school diversity policies that limit Asian American students at magnet programs and selective high schools.

Three years ago, the court ruled that Harvard and other universities may not discriminate on whom they admit based on the race of their applicants. Evidence in that case showed that Asian applicants with very high test scores were often turned down.

But the justices have been divided over admissions rules for highly selective high schools in Boston, New York and Fairfax County, Va., as well as magnet programs for gifted middle school students.

In most instances, judges have said school officials may use “race-neutral” policies to achieve racial diversity. For example, giving an automatic admission to the top 5% of the students in all of a big city’s high schools or its middle schools could achieve greater racial and ethnic diversity.

**This is a suggested Guide Only. Reddit has Rules and Guides and so does This Sub.

The vast majority of People DO NOT know how to Debate properly. It is a simple Truth. I want to give You some easy to follow Guidelines on "How to Debate properly and gain Respect".

• Do not attack the Source. It makes You look weak.
• Do not attack the One presenting the Content. This also makes You look weak.
• Do Not be Name Calling.. This makes You look weak.
• Focus on the Content of the Presentation only. Ignore any Other Commenter trying to drag You off Topic.
• Stay on Topic no matter what and try to provide solid reliable Sources to back up Your Counter Presentation.
• Do not allow Yourself to be Trolled by Others. Ignore Them. Do Not feed Them. Starve Them of Attention.
• Always give Credit to Others Who present properly formatted Presentations.
• Respect is earned not given freely so if You want to be respected as a Person Who is strong in any Debate then present Yourself accordingly.

As France burns, a Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog is sending out an Election Day warning about the designs of the Red-Green Alliance.

The unlikely and unholy marriage between Marxists and Islamists is now devouring France under the guise of student discontent. Make no mistake. The young, as they often are, serve as the useful idiots of a revolution fueled by leftist money and global intifada manpower.

The bedlam is the natural outcrop of mass migration into “progressive” European countries now bearing the weight of radical Islam and an army of socialist revolutionaries preaching “From the River to the Sea …”

Thanks to the decades of open-door immigration policies that exploded during the autopen presidency of Joe Biden, the torches are being trained on the United States, too. ‘They Hate America’

“The Red-Green Alliance is the most dangerous partnership in American politics, and the radical left is proud to be part of it,” Mike Davis, founder of The Article III Project, said in a press release late last week. “Communists want your country. Islamists want your faith. They hate America, and they’ve figured out they’re stronger when they march together.”

Davis, who previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and served as an aide to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, announced the leftist lawfare-fighting Article III Project will release a daily ad through next month’s midterm election spelling out the dangers of the red (communist) and green (Islamist) partnership.

Perhaps one of the more obtuse headlines that greeted the readers On Sunday came from The New York Times: “France in Shock After Protests Turn Into Riots, Damaging Buildings and Shops.” CNN posted a close second over the weekend when it reported that French President Emmanuel Macron pledged to hold accountable those who “sought to bring down the Republic” during major protests.

“… Macron addressed the nation on Sunday evening as communities reeled from one of the most violent nights of unrest in recent years after largely peaceful anti-government protests descended into rioting, leaving government buildings torched, one police officer and one protester dead,” CNN reported.

So said the same corporate news network that brought you the “Fiery but Mostly Peaceful Protests” moniker that described a riot that burned down portions of a Wisconsin city in 2020.

This isn’t unrest. It’s a Marxist-driven revolution, aided and abetted by jihadists. Not much of it is peaceful. Not surprisingly, more violence and mayhem followed. All by design.

In one viral clip, a woman stands outside a Paris grocery store screaming at masked rioters as they root through what’s left of the retailer.

“Stop! Why are you doing this?” the woman pleads with the masked young thugs. “This isn’t the cause!” They push her aside. The video shows the looters hauling out bags of goods. One orders, “Get some wine! All of it.” Another gleefully declares, “It’s snacking time!”

The protests were supposed to be about economic inequality, funding for rat-infested schools, the rising cost of living. Like the Marxist-driven Black Lives Matter movement at the dawn of the decade, this “social justice” campaign has quickly devolved into chaos. That was the plan.

There’s a graphic I’ve seen printed on signs, shirts, and other apparel that says, “Mama. Mommy. Mom. Bruh.” All parents, especially mothers, should be appalled.

Results vary, but one search of the phrase using Google’s A.I. overview feature rendered a horrifying summary. “The phrase ‘Mama, Mommy, Mom, Bruh'” the overview said, “is a viral internet meme and popular line of novelty apparel that pokes fun at the humorous evolution of how children address their mothers as they grow up.” Specifically on the term “bruh,” the overview said that label is “used once the kids hit the tweens or teenage years, when the mother officially gets lumped into peer-to-peer teen slang.”

This, mind you, is supposed to be cute. It’s not cute. It is, in fact, highly disrespectful, and permitting children to address their elders, let alone their parents, with that level of informality only serves to undermine the people they’re supposed to regard the most.

There’s nothing authoritarian or excessively strict about insisting that minors acknowledge the difference between themselves and adults when they address one. The easiest way to do that is with titles like mom, dad, aunt, uncle, Mrs., Mr., professor, and so on. It’s not a formality for formality’s sake. It’s an implicit recognition that the older person is, at least in theory, more experienced in life and thus wiser and deserving of deference, even in casual conversation.

It is beyond weird that any parent would allow her child to address her as if she’s a peer rather than the authority. And not just the authority, but the person the child depends on for food, clothes, and shelter (and surely iPhones, vacations, and every streaming service they could possibly dream of wasting money on). Kids who pay no bills and contribute nothing financially to a household shouldn’t feel as though their parents are their peers. They’re not. They have a lot to learn and should conduct themselves accordingly.

Admittedly, some parents have a misplaced sense of pride in believing that they are, in fact, their child’s friend. But being a child’s confidante, consoler, and, most importantly, educator is not the same thing as being a friend. The love of a friend is not the same as a parent’s. A friend did not create the child. The parent did.

Americans have long heard class warfare rhetoric coming from Democrats — attacks on “the 1 percent,” “millionaires and billionaires,” and similar variations. But this type of rhetoric ignores the welfare state’s perpetual growth.

A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis illustrates this point. Since 1979 — the year before the “Reagan Revolution,” which supposedly shrank the size of government — government programs and payments to low-income households have continued to grow. By 2023, government transfer payments to the lowest income quintile (i.e., the lowest 20 percent of the population by income) totaled approximately $20,000 per household, or roughly 70 percent of their average cash income of about $28,500 per household.

John Jay, the first chief justice, was sworn in on this day in 1789. At the Court

In a new petition for review, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to limit courts’ ability to vacate federal agency actions. For more on the case, see the On Site section below.

On Friday, the justices met in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. Orders from that conference are expected this morning at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

Three cities and a group that provides legal services to immigrants have asked the Supreme Court to pause an agreement between Texas and the Department of Justice that prevents enforcement of a Biden-era rule allowing immigration judges to pause certain deportation proceedings. Responses to the application are due on Thursday by 4 p.m. EDT.

On Sept. 28, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for the Federal Bureau of Prisons to implement its new policy on healthcare and accommodations for transgender inmates, which would prevent such inmates from obtaining gender-transition surgeries, hormone therapy, and “social accommodations.” The dispute is now fully briefed, and the court’s decision could come at any time.

Saturday on Fox News Channel’s “Big Weekend Show,” Trump border czar Tom Homan said the administration could denaturalize and deport Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) if federal investigators prove immigration fraud.

Co-host Tomi Lahren said, “I think people were rather shocked to see this raid, and this has been something that many feel has been a long time coming, because there have been suspicions and allegations for a long time. What more can you tell us about it?”

Homan said, “Well, look, I said over a year ago the allegations were made clear and it would be investigated. And they are investigating it. I’m not going to get ahead of, you know, the bureau or agency, but, you know, I’ve been told they have a strong case and we’ll let the evidence lead where it leads. But she’ll be held to the same standard you and I are held. If she violated law, then she will be held accountable. But I don’t have the specifics of the evidence they have line by line, but we’ll see where it leads. I think they’re doing a great investigation. I think they’re going to turn over every rock they’ve got with this.”

Lahren said, “Would this involve denaturalizing and then deporting her, if it does turn out there is some kind of immigration fraud?”

Homan said, “Of course. If you lie during the naturalization process, there is a process to denaturalize somebody. We’ve done it before, it’s a long, tedious process, but it’s been done before. I’ve been involved with those investigations before, and certainly, if the evidence points that way, that could happen.”

A Corpus Christi man is charged with transporting illegal aliens after being arrested by U.S. Border Patrol agents in Port Mansfield, Texas, on October 6. Agents arrested 28-year-old Alec Ray Foss after stopping a speedboat-type vessel he was piloting with three illegal aliens, an AR-style rifle, a pistol, and four pipe bombs on board.

According to a criminal complaint filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, Border Patrol agents responded to the docks in Port Mansfield after receiving a tip from the Port Mansfield Police Department concerning three people boarding a speedboat-style vessel after exiting a vehicle nearby. Authorities saw the vessel leave the docks and travel north on the Intracoastal Waterway.

Court documents indicate a law enforcement aircraft observed the vessel 20 miles south of Corpus Christi. Border Patrol agents recognized the vessel as one Foss previously operated through an ongoing investigation. Within hours of receiving the first information about the suspected smuggling event, agents located the suspicious vessel at Bluff Landing.

Border Patrol agents approached Foss as he attempted to load the boat onto a trailer and leave the landing. According to the criminal complaint, as agents approached, Foss unlatched the vehicle from the trailer, boarded the vessel, and attempted to start the engine. Agents intervened, ordering Foss not to start the vessel and to disembark. Foss complied and was detained.

After being advised of his rights and agreeing to answer questions, Foss told agents there were three people on board. During a search, agents found three male subjects, later found to be illegally present in the United States, concealed inside the cabin area and an under-seat compartment. Border Patrol agents also located a handgun inside a bag, an AR-style rifle with a loaded drum magazine inserted into the weapon, and four suspected pipe bombs during the search.

According to court documents, Foss told authorities he expected to be paid $3,000 in cash for each illegal alien he transported once he delivered them to Houston, Texas. The three passengers found on the vessel with Foss were determined to be two citizens of Ecuador and one Guatemalan national illegally present in the United States.

According to a detention memo submitted to the court, Foss is not new to transporting illegal aliens. In 2023, authorities say Foss was arrested by deputies from the Zapata County Sheriff’s Department after being encountered during a vehicle stop in South Texas. At the time, Foss was driving a vehicle with three illegal aliens concealed behind the seat and in the trunk area of the vehicle. According to the United States Attorney’s Office, it ultimately dropped the charges in that case.

In addition to the criminal case against Foss for transporting illegal aliens, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is investigating the pipe bombs located onboard the vessel.

As part of that investigation, ATF executed a search warrant at Foss’s residence on October 8. During the search, five firearms, 3,500 rounds of ammunition, and various materials used to construct pipe bombs were located and confiscated.

If found guilty of transporting illegal aliens with life endangerment, Foss faces up to 20 years in prison.

A big Thank You to all of Our Subscribers here on the Sub. You are why We are here posting Daily.

Even if You do not Comment We see You! We see You viewing the Articles We present for You and We appreciate You being here with Us.

Yes Our Comment and Posting Policies are semi strict but We want a Better Sub!

So with all of that presented a huge THANK YOU!

We would like to remind all Members and Visitors that We have Rules on This Sub just like Reddit and We ask all of You to please abide by Them.

This is not a difficult Issue for Some but for Others We know They will not be able to control Themselves and will FAAFO beyond Common Decency. For These Types We will deal with accordingly.

Enjoy the Sub It will only be as great as You the Members make It.

President Donald Trump promised jail for California officials who don’t heed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) warning that they will be criminally charged if they include the mail-in ballots of the some 200,000 people reportedly identified as potential noncitizens in their midterm election tallies.

“They will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social Friday.

Along with his statement the president shared a copy of a letter the DOJ sent to the Los Angeles County Counsel’s Office, promising “significant” consequences for “facilitating or ignoring” the “federal crime” of illegally voting in a federal election.

On Thursday, the DOJ sued the Golden State after providing state and local election officials with a USB drive “containing voter roll citizenship data, giving the state 48 hours to compare 20,000 names the Department of Homeland Security flagged as non-U.S. citizens with its own data rolls,” the Hill reported.

Earlier in the week, the DOJ sent a letter to election officials that included a password to access the files on the thumb drive.

“If California was unable to independently confirm the citizenship of people on that list, the Federal Government asked that California set aside ballots received from them until the person’s citizenship was confirmed,” according to the lawsuit, which was also posted online as a “courtesy to the public,” the DOJ said.

California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a written response to the civil complaint, calling it a “sad, desperate attempt by Trump to use his politicized Justice Department to try to suppress California voters just three weeks before Election Day.”

“The courts have made clear that the federal government has no role in how a state carries out its election process, and now, in the middle of Californians voting, they have asked local officials — who do a damn good job defending democracy — to violate federal law,” Newsom also said in the statement.

In September, a group called the UCLA Voting Rights Project, sued the DOJ and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) questioning how the administration came up with their numbers of noncitizens registered to vote, according to news reports.

The Hill reported that the group would seek a temporary restraining order if the Trump administration did not abandon plans for a criminal crackdown on the state’s officials.

“Your clients’ actions in compiling the list violates established law; your efforts to employ this list to systematically purge voters, less than a month before the election, further violates the National Voter Registration Act, among other laws,” attorneys for the group wrote in its most recent letter to the DOJ.

Earlier this year, President Trump alleged that California, along with three other states, collectively had 250,000 noncitizens on their voter rolls, a number disputed by his opponents.

Tom Emmer, the number three Republican in the House and highest-ranking lawmaker from Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) home state, is calling for the Somalia-born leftist to be jailed and deported if it is found she or her family lied on her citizenship paperwork.

Omar is under federal investigation as the result of allegations that reportedly include she and/or her father lied about when she was born on immigration paperwork in order to obtain her citizenship after her family fled the troubled African country in the 1990s.

If her reported birthdate indicating she was younger than 18 at the time of her naturalization was false, her citizenship would not be valid and she would not qualify for the naturalization requirement for her to serve in Congress.

Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview that “there have been rumors for years” about Omar.

“If proven true, she should face consequences,” he said.

Omar and other Democrats, including House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, (D-NY) have been pushing back, claiming the probe is a political persecution by President Donald Trump against a lawmaker who is a frequent critic.

They also accuse the administration of malevolent timing with the investigation surfacing weeks before the critical midterm election.

But Emmer didn’t hold back.

He told Fox, “I would say first she should probably serve time in the gray bar motel and then get the hell out of here. She should go back to where she came from … [i]f it’s determined that she lied to gain citizenship.”

Omar is a member of the high-profile, far-left legislative clique known as the “Squad” with other members, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

Earlier this week federal agents raided Omar’s home and seized her cellphone as well as other items.

The allegations are reportedly linked to her father becoming an American citizen in 2000, the year supporters say Omar was 17, automatically qualifying her for naturalized citizenship as a legal minor and daughter of a naturalized citizen.

If she was 18, as recently alleged by some, she would have to seek citizenship through the established process herself for those immigrants, such as green card holders, who seek it.

Omar posted on X after the raid:

I’m ok. Make no mistake: this is an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement. For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns. This is just the latest escalation in his campaign of political intimidation. I will not be silenced.

Omar’s allies and other critics of the probe have called it an unprecedented action with fewer than three weeks before midterm Election Day on Nov. 3.

Jeffries and his top deputies called the raid “deeply disturbing” and essentially accused the president of immigration lawfare.

Emmer countered bluntly.

“I think she is a liar,” Emmer told Fox on camera. “I think she is a fraud.”

Emmer argued the probe was not political, pointing to the judicially authorized search warrant for Omar’s home.

“That judge had to determine that there was probable cause that a federal crime has been committed,” Emmer said. “And I’ll tell you what, as long as it was Ilhan Omar, it was going to be scrutinized to the very detail.”

He added, “So the fact that they issued the warrant in the first place and then executed it, I mean maybe after all these years, someone is finally going to hold Ilhan Omar accountable.”

I’ve not written nearly as much as I probably should’ve about James Talarico, the pro-abortion Democrat running for the Senate in Texas against pro-life Republican Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general. With the Senate races incredibly tight across the nation, this one may be as close as any and is pivotal to keeping control of the Senate out of the hands of the manically pro-abortion Democrat party.

Talarico has taken positions on issues not directly connected to pro-lifers that are, shall we say, odd at best. On abortion, however, he has accrued an almost unblemished pro-abortion record while serving as a member of the Texas House of Representatives since 2019.

I’ve reposted Texas Right to Life’s “James Talarico’s Abortion Record.” Brought together in one place, his commitment to abortion is devasting. Here are just a few highlights/lowlights.