This case will not be talked about much, but today the Supreme Court abolished the independence of many federal agencies. It is a decision that will grant the President more power than a king.
Plummeting birth rates and a relentless Russian threat are pushing frontline nations into a corner.
How much longer can countries like Finland and Estonia justify keeping military conscription mandatory for men alone?
Forcing only men into mandatory service while keeping it optional for women is an unsustainable compromise that cannot survive the current security landscape.
For one, it is a massive double standard that serves no one. If a country genuinely values equality, that equality has to extend to national defense.
From a strategic standpoint, the lesson from Ukraine is clear. No country has too many soldiers in a full-scale war against Russia, especially in a long war. Frontline states with tiny populations have zero margin for error, meaning we must mobilize every available human resource to maintain a credible defense.
The demographic crisis is rapidly forcing this change. In the Cold War era, Finland routinely drafted up to 40,000 men annually. Today, despite a larger general population, the intake has starved down to just 21,000 a year due to declining birth rates. If that number dips under 20,000, maintaining a viable national reserve becomes hard.
Transitioning to mandatory conscription for both sexes is the only logical path forward. It does not mean every single person gets put into combat. Both genders will face the draft, the military will pick what it needs, and the rest can do a civil service. It is fair, it is good for the nation, and it is wild that we have taken this long to realize it
Last week, a Muslim woman entered our family ranch store and asked for Halal beef. When I told her we do not offer it, she demanded to know why not. As she turned to leave, I extended my hand in a simple gesture of goodwill—only for her to refuse it outright. The same person who expects us to accommodate her faith’s ritualistic slaughter of our livestock—complete with specific blessings and throat-cutting methods—could not bring herself to touch a Christian man’s hand. It was a stark reminder that some demands for tolerance flow only in one direction: ours.
One of the reasons that I don't accept the "nuking USAID killed millions of people" framing is because most of the people saying this never took the stance that the US was a tremendously good and heroic force for saving millions of people
Let’s talk reflecting pool. Warren G. Harding built it on swampland and the structure beneath it would have been fine - if it had been built on stable ground. The whole thing started sinking slowly.
Presidents all the way up through Carter kept trying to prop it up with little cement pours, and regularly draining and cleaning it. Algae was a problem even then because there was no real circulation system. No pumps. No filters.
Reagan added some more concrete, realizing the entire pool was now 12 or 13 inches lower than it should be. It had sunk over a foot and pulled loose from its structure.
Clinton publicly acknowledged that the entire pool needed demolished and rebuilt, and that it would take hundreds of millions of dollars to do it right.
The Bushes just kept trying to plug leaks and clean it. Every time they had to drain and scrub the thing, it cost around $100,000 to do so. George W. Bush actually had plans drawn up to rebuild it. 
Obama decided to revise and execute the Bush renovation, which was needed, but it was flawed, and he spent tens of millions of dollars on it. He raised the pool up with a timber under-structure so the water ended up being even shallower, which means that’s the point at which the water started getting warmer. He also turned off the chlorinated city water supply into the pool and began pumping water in from the tidal basin - that’s the somewhat stagnant water that comes in from the Potomac River and surrounds the Jefferson Memorial. There was algae before, but with those changes came even more algae. Obama‘s reasoning was that the basin water would be cheaper instead of using the city water supply. He had the pool tiles removed from the bottom and another layer gray cement put in place along with gray-tinted reflective paint, which gradually faded away.
By the time Trump’s first term came around, the cleaning had to be done every three or four months, some of the Obama structural repairs were failing, and the leaks were rampant again.
By the time Biden got into office, Obama’s reflecting pool fixes were cracked and the pool was leaking hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of gallons of water. Biden opted to clean the pool, but performed little maintenance, and did no substantial refurbishment.
Trump’s fix was to try something that the other presidents hadn’t. Whereas Obama had used a gray reflective paint and cement, Trump tried a combination sealant liner - it isn’t paint. Those sealants are similarly light-reflective to what Obama used. Trump switched up to blue from the dark gray. He added nanobubblers.
When we walked around it the other day, there was only a small patch on the middle of the left side that may have been coming up. It was too windy and stormy to see why. It was not as if the sealant was coming up all over the pool and floating to the top because it wasn’t. We did see the algae cleaning going on and the crews, you could tell, were tired of being harassed for doing their jobs. 
Vandals have damaged the grass, they’ve cut into the liner in other places and the knife lines are clear in the videos. We did see the National Guard soldiers coming in. We also saw them placed around the America 250 construction area and in between the museums. Five vandals have been arrested since we walked through. It’s unbelievable to me that they want to destroy something we could all enjoy out of hatred for a president whose policies they don’t even understand.  And the mainstream media is reprehensible. They aren’t reporting. They’re spinning propaganda as usual.
How exactly can Congress allow somebody to take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States if they openly advocate for eradicating the country?
@KurtSchlichter We're in a similar position we were in 250 years ago. The thirteen colonies were big but there wasn't enough room for Americans and tories to live together.
"The Senate’s Standing Rules have been dissected ad nauseam since the House took S.1383, a bill already passed by the Senate, gutted its text, replaced it entirely with the SAVE America Act, and returned it as a privileged message. That procedural posture matters. There is no need to “nuke” the filibuster lowering the cloture threshold from 60 votes to 51 to call up the bill (emphasis mine). Under the Senate’s existing rules, the message can be called up for debate. After the two-speech rule is exhausted or there is no one left wishing to speak, the bill is voted up or down by simple majority." Connie Hair
Understand how this works for many in NYC: perp gets a SNAP card, presents to bodega cashier; cashier rings up $100 for bread, milk, etc; no goods exchange hands; bodega keeps $50; perp keeps $50, buys drugs. Perp has a dozen cards in different names.
The increase of foreign-born leftists with power is absolutely off the charts. Sparkle has been an American for 7 years and has the ability to strike down the President’s agenda. Pure insanity.