‘One big thieving cabal’: Democrats warned to brace for a bigger threat than Trump

New Republic Deputy Editor Jason Linkins says Democrats must brace themselves for a much bigger enemy than Jeffrey Epstein if they want to truly show the public they are taking on U. S. corruption. “The time to pummel these crooks is nigh, and they needn’t be precious about it,” Linkins said. “Think of it like this: Trumpism is the culmination of a crooked scheme that began nearly a half-century ago, in which the rich and powerful looted our wealth and tore up the civic fabric of this nation. Yes, like the Epstein affair suggests, it really is one big thieving cabal of plutocratic reprobates that has done us dirty. There is an opportunity now for Democrats with guts to crush these scumbags, and take back what they stole.” Linkins said a massive partywide attack on the root of corruption must also include deep scrutiny inside the Democratic Party itself if the public is to be convinced that Democrats are serious about this. “Conservatives have darkly warned their liberal counterparts: ‘Be careful what you wish for; what if this implicates a bunch of crusty old Democrats?’ To which I say, ‘Don’t threaten me with a good time,’” Linkins said. “As I’ve watched the Epstein story unravel across the media through the shouting of lawmakers and the flood of tawdry emails dumped in the press I’ve not been able to ignore how it’s all one big pile of rot at the center of polite society.” Linkins said he is “less worried about whether some Democratic Party luminary catches an Epstein stray and more concerned about whether Democrats bungle the opportunity to attack these corrupt arrangements and the presidential administration that has made them its North Star.” The iron for this, said Linkins, is “particularly hot” right now with the American public. “A fresh Reuters/Ipsos poll released Wednesday found that Trump’s approval ratings had hit startling new lows, with respondents particularly “unhappy about his handling of the high cost of living and the investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.” Epstein and the economy are the “twin albatrosses around Trump’s neck,” said Linkins, but the question remains whether Democrats “will have the stomach and the sense to exploit both avenues to Trump’s ruin.” “It may not seem like a problem, but Democrats seem pathologically averse to multitasking, which explains why they’re making the salience of grocery prices their priority to the exclusion of all other matters,” Linkins said. “So monomaniacal is this approach that at various times over the past year, Democratic lawmakers have called other concerns “distractions”-up to and including Trump’s rampaging paramilitary forces.” Abandoning the moment would be a travesty considering mounting public disgust and anger. According to the most recent NPR/PBS News Marist poll, Democrats have attained a 14-point lead over the GOP on the generic congressional ballot.
https://www.alternet.org/trump-corruption-epstein-scandal/

Why Is Nick Fuentes So Popular? Nikki Haley’s Son on Tucker Carlson Show (Transcript)

The Singju Post ^ | November 20, 2025 | Tucker Carlson Posted on by Kazan And the lesson that our professional betters in Washington have drawn over the past few weeks is that means they are as bad as Nick Fuentes. They are Nazis too! Tucker Carlson: “But of course, they are not Nazis by and large. They are just American young people. And so the question is-and it is a pressing question if you care about the future of the country-why have they been listening to Nick Fuentes? Sincerely, like what is this? Why aren’t they listening to somebody from the Heritage Foundation or the Daily Wire? Why do they believe Nick Fuentes more than they believe the people who think they ought to have a monopoly on the attention of young conservatives? That is a really important question. And what does it say not simply about their attitudes, but about the problems they face, the society they grew up in, the future they imagined for themselves? What does it say about all of that, that Fuentes is so popular among young men? After all, young men really are kind of the basis of our hope for continuing as a country. ## It’s immoral to dismiss the concerns of your countrymen as beneath consideration. “I don’t have to listen to you because you like some guy who has got ugly views.” By the way, it is not a defense of all of Fuentes’ views. We interviewed him on the show and said it is totally immoral to hate Jews as a group because it’s totally immoral to hate any group. Period. That’s always wrong. But it doesn’t mean that everything Fuentes says is wrong. It’s not wrong. And more to the point, what he says on the air and his huge popularity, which has only increased the more these people scream at him, says a lot about the people who are listening and their legitimate concerns and the factors in our society, in America and in the West, that gave rise to their attitudes.” TOPICS: KEYWORDS: nalinhaley; nickfuentes; tuckercarlson Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC PO Box 9771 Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. 1 posted on by Kazan To: Kazan 2 posted on by janetjanet998 (Please don’t use google products, especially YouTube ) Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4353736/posts

Pro-Life, Anti-Death Penalty

National support for the death penalty is at an all-time low, with younger adults from both major political parties increasingly opposing capital punishment. Yet in Texas’ execution chamber, the pace of lethal injections continues unabated. This persistence comes even as some condemned Texans—including Melissa Lucio and Robert Roberson—have had their high-profile executions halted with only days or hours to spare.

Recent outcry against the state’s death penalty has emerged from both sides of the political aisle. On the day of Roberson’s scheduled execution last year, a bipartisan group of legislators made the unprecedented move to subpoena him for a public hearing scheduled after he was supposed to have died. This successful effort helped forestall the execution so courts could review his claims of innocence. (On October 9 this year, Roberson’s execution was stayed by the state’s top criminal court, a week before his scheduled death.)

Nan Tolson, former chief spokesperson for Governor Greg Abbott, now leads the Texas chapter of the national network Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty. She sees the punishment as rife with problems—from political and faith perspectives to its ineffectiveness as a public safety tool.

Since founding Texas’ Lone Star State affiliate in 2023 as part of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Tolson and her organization have engaged with thousands of Republicans statewide. She describes creating a “safe space for conservatives to talk to like-minded people about the death penalty,” which has brought hundreds into the movement against capital punishment.

Tolson, 30, was recognized in 2024 with a “40 Under 40” fellowship by the Texas Federation of Republican Women for her activism. In mid-September, the Texas Observer spoke with her about the conservative argument against the death penalty, how Texas’ top Republicans think about the issue, and the powerful idea of redemption.

**Texas Observer (TO): You’re a notable young voice in Texas conservatism. Have you gotten pushback from other Republicans for your views on the death penalty?**

**Nan Tolson (NT):** I would say so. There’s pushback on all sides when it comes to the death penalty, which is something I was prepared for. It’s a controversial and emotional topic. But I’ve actually received more positive reception and curiosity from Republicans than opposition. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the number of people who are genuinely interested in what we’re doing and want to learn more, even if they don’t fully agree. The death penalty is an issue many people across political parties are on the fence about.

**TO: What made you realize you were firmly against it?**

**NT:** When I was a freshman at Baylor, we had a guest speaker named Shane Claiborne who came to chapel one morning and essentially laid out an elevator pitch on why Christians should oppose the death penalty. I had never heard that argument before. It totally changed my mind in that moment.

**TO: Have you noticed any change when high-profile cases like Melissa Lucio’s and Robert Roberson’s are in the news?**

**NT:** Definitely. We’ve seen a large number of Republicans supporting Robert Roberson. The Texas Young Republicans Federation signed onto a letter asking for a new trial. There are very prominent Republicans in the Legislature who support him. And when we speak to different conservative groups across Texas, often before we even mention his case, people ask, “What’s the status with Robert Roberson’s case? I can’t believe this is happening. This has made me question the death penalty.”

**TO: Would you say the execution of innocent people is a significant problem in Texas?**

**NT:** Absolutely. When we talk to conservatives who oppose or question the death penalty, the most common concern is wrongful executions. The data backs this up—there is strong evidence that Texas has executed at least seven innocent people. As conservatives, we recognize that the government will not get it right every time.

**TO: Why do you think opposition to the death penalty can be bipartisan, especially given the political divides on many criminal justice issues?**

**NT:** The death penalty is extremely fiscally irresponsible. It costs more to sentence someone to death and carry out the execution than to sentence them to life in prison without parole. It’s also an ineffective deterrent to violent crime—the evidence is inconclusive at best regarding whether it prevents homicides.

There’s also a strong pro-life argument. As a society, we can keep people safe while honoring the inherent dignity and worth of every life, including those on death row who have committed unspeakable acts.

**TO: Are there cases of Texans who have been executed, exonerated, or remain on death row that you think more people should know about?**

**NT:** Two come to mind that I’ve worked on over the last couple of years. One is Ramiro Gonzales. He was 100% guilty of the crime he committed as essentially a teenager and was on death row for several years. He was executed last year, but the person Texas executed was not the same person who committed the crime, because Gonzales had changed.

This is something we often see—people who commit crimes at a young age come into prison broken and messed up. But with structure, resources, and time, many transform. They express genuine remorse, apologize to victims’ families, and often embrace faith. It’s hard to see the State of Texas provide those tools but still say, “Your life is expendable; we’re going to execute you anyway.”

Another man, Ivan Cantu, executed last year out of the Dallas area, is believed by some to have been wrongfully executed.

**TO: You’ve worked at the Capitol with some of Texas’s highest-level Republicans. What did you learn about how the Republican Party thinks about these issues?**

**NT:** Republicans and conservatives, especially in Texas, pride themselves on being tough on crime. But we need to be willing to think outside the box, recognize what works, and acknowledge what doesn’t.

What stood out to me is the nuance in political beliefs—there is no single way to be a Republican or a conservative. That’s something positive that should be encouraged. Half of our work is showing conservatives that opposing the death penalty doesn’t mean you’re not a Republican or a conservative, or that you’re betraying your values. It means you’ve critically thought about an important issue and realized it doesn’t align with your principles.

**TO: Most Republicans nationwide support the death penalty, and former President Donald Trump has publicly pushed prosecutors to seek it. Do you feel like you’re fighting an uphill battle?**

**NT:** I do think it’s an uphill battle, but it’s not impossible. We’re not going to end the death penalty overnight—that’s never been the goal, nor would it be realistic. But educating conservatives and giving them a space to question the death penalty is realistic and impactful.

We don’t come out saying, “You’re wrong, and we need to end it tomorrow.” We approach this strategically, with empathy and understanding. There are victims of horrible crimes, and it’s natural to want justice or even revenge. We embrace that, but also recognize that the death penalty is not the right way to seek justice in a practical sense.

*This interview has been edited for length and clarity.*
https://www.texasobserver.org/pro-life-anti-death-penalty/

Louisiana prison guards cut a Rastafari inmate’s dreadlocks. Supreme Court will decide if he can sue

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday wrestled with whether a former Louisiana inmate can sue prison officials who cut off his dreadlocks in violation of his Rastafari religious beliefs.

The justices heard arguments in the case of Damon Landor, who wants to sue for money damages under a federal law designed to protect the religious rights of inmates. After two hours of arguments, the court’s three liberal justices seemed firmly on Landor’s side. But it was unclear whether even one of the six conservatives, let alone the two who would be necessary for a majority, would join them.

No one is defending what happened to Landor in 2020 when guards cut the dreadlocks he had been growing for nearly two decades. However, Louisiana argues that the law—the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)—cannot be used to hold those who violate inmates’ rights financially responsible. Lower courts have so far uniformly ruled against Landor and others who have made similar claims.

“Look, the facts of this case are egregious,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said. But Barrett also expressed concern that every court that has weighed in “went the other way.”

The justices could be guided by their decision in 2020 allowing Muslim men to sue over their inclusion on the FBI’s no-fly list under a sister statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Interestingly, the Justice Department, which argued against the plaintiffs in the no-fly list case during President Donald Trump’s first administration, now agrees with Landor.

When Landor entered the prison system for a five-month term in 2020, he carried a copy of an appeals court ruling from another inmate’s case holding that cutting religious prisoners’ dreadlocks violated the federal law. At his first two stops, officials respected his beliefs. But things changed when he arrived at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in Cottonport, about 80 miles (130 kilometers) northwest of Baton Rouge, for the final three weeks of his term.

According to court records, a prison guard took the copy of the ruling Landor carried and tossed it in the trash. Then the warden ordered guards to cut his dreadlocks. While two guards restrained him, a third shaved his head to the scalp.

Landor sued after his release, but lower courts dismissed the case. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lamented Landor’s treatment but said the law doesn’t allow him to hold prison officials liable for damages. Louisiana stated that “the state has amended its prison grooming policy to ensure that nothing like petitioner’s alleged experience can occur.”

The Rastafari faith is rooted in 1930s Jamaica, growing as a response by Black people to white colonial oppression. Its beliefs are a melding of Old Testament teachings and a desire to return to Africa. The faith’s message was spread worldwide in the 1970s by Jamaican music icons Bob Marley and Peter Tosh, two of Rastafari’s most famous exponents.

A decision in *Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections*, 23-1197, is expected by spring.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at [AP News](https://apnews.com/hub/supreme-court).
https://ktar.com/national-news/louisiana-prison-guards-cut-a-rastafari-inmates-dreadlocks-supreme-court-will-decide-if-he-can-sue/5773903/

Gavin Newsom Admits Democrats Have Lost Touch with Men and Boys [WATCH]

California Governor Gavin Newsom has called on Democrats to confront what he described as a growing “crisis of men and boys,” acknowledging that his party has “ceded that ground” to conservatives.

Speaking Sunday on CNN’s *State of the Union* with host Jake Tapper, Newsom said Democrats have been too slow to recognize and address issues affecting men, including mental health and educational challenges.

“I say this as a Democrat: We need to own up to the fact that we ceded that ground. We walked away from this crisis of men and boys,” Newsom said. “Trump saw it as an electoral opportunity to exploit it, but he’s done nothing to deliver in terms of results to address those anxieties, which are real.”

The governor cited rising suicide rates, school dropout rates, and suspension rates among men as evidence of a worsening trend.

“This is an issue our party needs to address. We can’t afford, from an electoral perspective, to lose these folks. But we also can’t on the basis of our values and what we claim to care about and represent, and I say that on behalf of women that need better men,” he added.

### Recognizing Conservative Outreach

Newsom also referenced the late Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, noting his ability to connect with younger men through activism and cultural outreach.

“Charlie was organizing around it. People weren’t aware of what Turning Point USA was,” Newsom said. “I talked to so many Democrats who said, ‘Who’s Charlie Kirk?’ I said, ‘Well, your son knows about him.’”

Kirk, who was shot and killed during a campus event in September, had been a central figure in conservative youth organizing for more than a decade. His efforts to engage young men through political and social issues made Turning Point USA one of the most influential conservative movements among college students and recent graduates.

Newsom and Kirk had previously appeared together on a podcast in March 2025, where they discussed topics ranging from education to gender policy. During that conversation, the two found limited common ground on the issue of biological males competing in women’s sports.

Kirk asked the governor directly, “You, as the governor, should step out and say no. Would you do something like that? Would you say no men in female sports?”

“Well, I think it’s an issue of fairness,” Newsom responded. “I completely agree with you on that. It’s deeply unfair.”

### A Call to Action for Democrats

In his interview with Tapper, Newsom emphasized that Democrats must take the masculinity issue seriously both politically and socially.

“It’s a real issue. Democrats need to understand it not as a zero-sum issue, but an issue that defines not just our politics, but I think, defines our families, our relationships, defines the culture in this moment,” he said.

The governor’s remarks mark one of the most direct acknowledgments by a prominent Democrat that the party has lost influence among younger men.

Recent polls have shown a widening gender gap in voter alignment, with many young men gravitating toward conservative and populist messages that emphasize discipline, accountability, and purpose.

Newsom’s comments also reflect growing concern among Democratic strategists that cultural issues — rather than purely economic ones — are shaping voter sentiment in ways that the party has struggled to address.

His recognition of Kirk’s impact signals a rare moment of bipartisan acknowledgment following months of heightened cultural debate surrounding gender, education, and political identity.

### Looking Ahead to 2026 Midterms

As the 2026 midterm cycle approaches, Newsom’s comments suggest Democrats may attempt to reclaim ground among male voters who have increasingly supported conservative movements over the past decade.

Whether his message will resonate within his own party remains uncertain, but the governor’s remarks indicate a notable shift in tone from a prominent figure within the Democratic establishment.
https://www.lifezette.com/2025/11/gavin-newsom-admits-democrats-have-lost-touch-with-men-and-boys-watch/

‘Unity’ with Nazi sympathizers: An ugly problem within parts of the political Right

There’s an ugly new current running through parts of the political Right: a growing attempt to sanitize what should never be sanitized—overt fascism, national socialism, kinist racial theory, and anti-Jewish conspiracy. In corners of the internet and certain activist spaces, people are “ironically” quoting Hitler, praising the Third Reich’s “order,” and calling all Jews “globalist parasites.” Some even try to reframe Hitler as a misunderstood nationalist hero.

That alone is disturbing enough. But what’s worse is the emerging chorus of voices—including influential conservatives like Matt Walsh—saying we need unity, even with them, for the sake of “winning politically” (“no enemies to the right”).

To be clear: unity itself is good. Conservatives have lost far too much ground to pointless infighting. We’ve split over secondary issues and handed the Left the culture war on a silver platter. But unity is not a moral blank check. True unity can’t come at the expense of first principles, truth, human dignity, and liberty under God. Once we trade those for the illusion of strength, we don’t win. We rot from within.

There’s actually a perfect parallel for this in the church world. Years ago, the “Revoice” movement emerged in Evangelical circles marketing itself as a “safe space” for LGBT inclusion within Christianity. It claimed to just “welcome” everyone, but beneath that language was a quiet redefinition of biblical truth. By normalizing sin under the banner of compassion, Revoice diluted the Gospel it claimed to uphold. It was seeker sensitivity for homosexuality—a slow moral surrender dressed up as kindness.

That’s exactly what “unity” with Nazi sympathizers looks like in politics: tolerance of evil wrapped in pragmatism. “We don’t agree with them,” the argument goes, “but we need them to win.” No. That’s not a strategy. That’s a compromise pretending to be courage.

To give the devil his due, Matt Walsh and others like him are absolutely justified in their anger toward the modern Left. The Left is deranged, institutionally powerful, and aggressively hostile to faith, truth, and normal life. Conservatives are right to see it as a real threat.

When Walsh says the Left is violent—pointing to things like the assassination attempt on Charlie Kirk—he’s not wrong. The radical Left dominates the institutions that control culture, finance, and speech, and they use that power to crush dissent. They are, without question, the more dangerous threat on an institutional level.

He’s also right to note that the establishment Right has gone on too long doing absolutely nothing about this real threat.

But here’s where Walsh’s reasoning falls apart: just because the far-right extremists don’t have institutional power, and just because the establishment has dropped the ball, that doesn’t mean they aren’t evil (and dangerous, if given the opportunity). And grafting them into the conservative base is handing them that opportunity.

Power doesn’t make a worldview right or wrong; it just determines how much damage it can do. The Nazi ideology he’s overlooking would be just as barbaric if it ever gained the same power the Left currently wields. Evil isn’t graded on a curve.

And we’ve seen how this plays out. A week ago, a Politico piece lit a match under this conversation again. It detailed leaked group chats from a young Republican organization where members were “joking” about loving Hitler, gassing Jews, and raping women.

Sure, Politico is a far-left outlet that framed it as proof that all conservatives are Nazis. But that doesn’t make the entire thing fiction. The story rings true to what’s actually brewing beneath the surface of parts of the younger right—an ugly undercurrent of racist, anti-Jew, “ironic fascism.”

And if we call for unity with that, we’re doing exactly what the Left has accused us of for years. We make their smear look true.

That’s not only morally vacant; it’s politically stupid. Siding with or excusing Nazi sympathizers doesn’t just stain your conscience; it hands the Left a gift-wrapped propaganda victory.

For years, progressives have falsely smeared anyone right of center as a “Nazi.” But the moment we tolerate real fascists, we give their slander teeth. It alienates normal voters who came to the Right precisely because we weren’t radical and guarantees the Left wins again.

It’s not a strategy. It’s an op.

Part of the problem is that conservatives have been so relentlessly gaslit by the Left that we’ve gone numb to the word “Nazi.” For decades, progressives have hurled it at everyone from Mitt Romney to your grandma for saying she likes the Constitution. The Left cried wolf so many times that now, when real wolves show up—actual neo-Nazis and fascist sympathizers—people on the Right roll their eyes. They assume it’s just another overreaction.

But this time, it’s not the Left crying “Nazi.” It’s Christians and conservatives—people like myself, Seth Dillon, Joel Berry, Ben Shapiro, Keri Smith, Will Spencer, Brandon Tatum, and many others. The very people who’ve been falsely smeared for years are now warning that the real thing has crept into our backyard.

That alone should make every serious conservative pause.

And let’s be clear about what we’re talking about when we say “Nazi.” This isn’t edgy “national pride.” Nazism was an industrialized system of cruelty: the Nuremberg Laws stripping Jews of citizenship, Kristallnacht burning synagogues across Germany, the T4 euthanasia program murdering the sick in the name of “purity.” Schools taught children to report their parents for racial “impurity.” Bureaucrats turned human beings into numbers. It was the machinery of death wrapped in patriotic slogans.

That’s what we’re being asked to “unify” with.

As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn—who suffered under the Soviet gulag—reminded the world, “The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” He, a man who saw leftist evil up close, saw firsthand that evil doesn’t belong to one political camp. The Left’s cruelty in the USSR mirrored the same soul sickness that drove fascism in Germany. His message was simple: evil grows wherever people stop saying “no.”

Again, pundits like Matt Walsh seem to assume the far right is less dangerous simply because it doesn’t have the same institutional power. But that’s naïve. Power doesn’t create moral corruption; it merely exposes it. The main reason why the radical Right hasn’t acted as brutally as the radical Left is that it can’t. Yet.

And Matt appears blind to this reality because he hasn’t been on the receiving end of the Right’s evil, like his friends Shapiro and Dillon have.

Walsh also argued that his driving principle is loyalty to his friends—that he wants to stand by them no matter what. This sounds noble at face value, but the reality here undercuts that very argument.

Think about this: his own colleagues and friends are the targets of these Hitler-sympathizing extremists. Ben Shapiro, Seth Dillon, Lara Loomer, and Josh Hammer have all received real death threats from fringe-right lunatics.

One man, Nicholas Ray—a follower of Candace Owens who was pushing the idea that “the Jews” and Shapiro’s circle plotted to kill Charlie Kirk—was recently arrested after making violent threats against those conservatives and their families.

Abby Libby, a young Christian conservative mother, has been doxxed, threatened with rape and murder, and even had her newborn child threatened.

So how does unity with those people make sense?

If loyalty is the point, how does aligning with your friends’ would-be killers honor that principle?

Would Walsh be okay with Ben Shapiro calling for unity with those who want him dead? I think not.

But that’s precisely what he’s calling for in reverse.

Most importantly, as a professing Christian, Walsh’s call for “unity” with evil is more than just politically misguided—it’s spiritually dissonant. Scripture commands believers to “expose the deeds of darkness,” not fellowship with them.

A Christian who excuses evil for strategic gain isn’t showing wisdom or courage. He’s showing fear.

It’s a terrible witness to the world—the same kind of moral compromise the Church made in the Revoice movement.

Conservatism, properly understood, is not authoritarianism with an American flag draped over it. It’s the defense of ordered liberty, limited government, individual rights, and the equal dignity of all people.

Nazism obliterates every one of those foundations. It rejects God’s image in man and replaces it with hierarchy, collectivism, and blood-and-soil idolatry. It is fundamentally anti-conservative.

We ought not unite with Nazis precisely because we are conservative. It’s that simple.

And that brings us back to the question: what does principled unity look like?

It means standing shoulder-to-shoulder on first principles—not turning a blind eye to evil in our ranks. It means drawing clear lines: no alliances with people who promote racial hatred or violence.

It means calling it out publicly when we see it—not because we want to “cancel” anyone, but because silence lets poison spread.

This isn’t a call for more division. It’s a call for discernment.

We can fight the Left with everything we’ve got without surrendering our moral compass in the process. We can win elections and keep our integrity.

As Walsh rightly noted, intolerance to evil is a virtue—but this should equally apply to evil in our own ranks.

Unity is good. But unity that abandons truth is surrender by another name.

Say yes to principled cooperation. Say no to pragmatic complicity.

*Mikale Olson is a contributor at The Federalist and a writer at Not the Bee, specializing in commentary on Christian theology and conservative politics. As a podcaster, YouTuber, and seasoned commentator, Mikale engages audiences with insightful analysis on faith, culture, and the public square.*
https://www.christianpost.com/voices/unity-with-nazi-sympathizers-ugly-problem-with-political-right.html

O’Reilly Confronts Tom Homan About ABC Smear, Homan Claps Back Hard [WATCH]

Border Czar Tom Homan pushed back forcefully against accusations aired on ABC claiming he accepted a $50,000 bribe, calling the story false and politically motivated during an exchange with Bill O’Reilly.

O’Reilly opened the discussion by referencing comments made by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “I know George Stephanopoulos is one of your best friends. He convicted you on television, okay, of a $50,000 bribe. Stephanopoulos did this on ABC. The Vice President JD Vance defended you, and I thought he did so pretty well, because due process is important. You want to clarify anything about that situation?” O’Reilly asked.

Homan was direct in his denial. “I didn’t take $50,000 from anybody,” he said.

O’Reilly followed up by asking how the accusation reached national coverage. “Okay, how did that get into the mainstream, do you think?”

Homan responded that he believed the story was part of an ongoing campaign against him by left-wing media outlets. “Do you think I have no idea? Look, there’s been hit pieces on me since I came back to this administration,” he explained. “There have to be 30-40 hit pieces on me about how I’m involved with contracts or government deals, when, in fact, day one I came back, I recused myself from any discussions of any contract or any monetary decisions like that, because I used to have a company that did consulting, so I cleared myself.”

Homan emphasized that rather than profiting from his role, he made a personal sacrifice to serve. “Day one, what people don’t talk about is I took a significant, huge pay cut to come back and serve my nation, and I’m not enriching myself doing this job,” he said.

O’Reilly asked whether the repeated attacks bothered him personally. “Does this make you angry that they’re coming at you this way?” he inquired.

Homan replied that he was unfazed by the criticism, saying his focus remains on duty and integrity. “I don’t care what people think about me because I know who I am. I work for the greatest precedent in the history of this nation in my family, and we’re doing the right thing every day,” Homan stated.

The ABC segment that prompted the exchange sparked backlash among conservatives, with many calling it another politically driven attack against Trump administration officials.

Homan’s comments reinforced his reputation for blunt honesty and commitment to border enforcement despite ongoing media scrutiny.
https://www.lifezette.com/2025/10/oreilly-confronts-tom-homan-about-abc-smear-homan-claps-back-hard-watch/

Is college worth the cost? Universities work to show the return on investment of a degree

WASHINGTON (AP) — For a generation of young Americans, choosing where to go to college—or whether to go at all—has become a complex calculation of costs and benefits that often revolves around a single question: Is the degree worth its price?

Public confidence in higher education has plummeted in recent years amid high tuition prices, skyrocketing student loans, a dismal job market, and ideological concerns from conservatives. Now, colleges are scrambling to prove their value to students.

Borrowed from the business world, the term “return on investment” (ROI) has been plastered on college advertisements across the U.S. A battery of new rankings grade campuses on the financial benefits they deliver. States such as Colorado have started publishing yearly reports on the monetary payoff of college, and Texas now factors ROI into calculations for how much taxpayer money goes to community colleges.

“Students are becoming more aware of the times when college doesn’t pay off,” said Preston Cooper, who has studied college ROI at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “It’s front of mind for universities today in a way that it was not necessarily 15, 20 years ago.”

### Most Bachelor’s Degrees Are Still Worth It

A wide body of research indicates a bachelor’s degree still pays off, at least on average and in the long run. Yet there’s growing recognition that not all degrees lead to a good salary, and even some that seem like a good bet are becoming riskier as graduates face one of the toughest job markets in years.

A new analysis released Thursday by the Strada Education Foundation finds 70% of recent public university graduates can expect a positive return within 10 years—meaning their earnings over a decade will exceed that of a typical high school graduate by an amount greater than the cost of their degree. Yet it varies by state, from 53% in North Dakota to 82% in Washington, D.C. States where college is more affordable have fared better, the report says.

It’s a critical issue for families who wonder how college tuition prices could ever pay off, said Emilia Mattucci, a high school counselor at East Allegheny schools near Pittsburgh. More than two-thirds of her school’s students come from low-income families, and many aren’t willing to take on the level of debt that past generations accepted.

Instead, more are heading to technical schools or the trades and passing on four-year universities, she said. “A lot of families are just saying they can’t afford it, or they don’t want to go into debt for years and years and years,” she explained.

### Questions About the Need for a Four-Year Degree

Education Secretary Linda McMahon has been among those questioning the necessity of a four-year degree. Speaking at the Reagan Institute think tank in September, McMahon praised programs that prepare students for careers right out of high school.

“I’m not saying kids shouldn’t go to college,” she said. “I’m just saying all kids don’t have to go in order to be successful.”

### Lowering College Tuition and Improving Graduate Earnings

American higher education has been grappling with both sides of the ROI equation: tuition costs and graduate earnings. This issue is becoming even more important as colleges compete for decreasing numbers of college-age students, due to falling birth rates.

Tuition rates have stayed flat on many campuses in recent years to address affordability concerns. Many private colleges have lowered their sticker prices to better reflect the costs most students actually pay after factoring in financial aid.

The other part of the equation—making sure graduates land good jobs—is more complicated. A group of college presidents recently met at Gallup’s Washington headquarters to study public polling on higher education.

One of the chief reasons for flagging confidence is the perception that colleges aren’t giving graduates the skills employers need, said Kevin Guskiewicz, president of Michigan State University, one of the leaders at the meeting.

“We’re trying to get out in front of that,” he said.

The issue has been a priority for Guskiewicz since he arrived on campus last year. He gathered a council of Michigan business leaders to identify skills that graduates will need for jobs, from agriculture to banking. The goal is to mold degree programs to the job market’s needs and to get students internships and work experience that can lead to a job.

### A Disconnect With the Job Market

Bridging the gap to the job market has been a persistent struggle for U.S. colleges, said Matt Sigelman, president of the Burning Glass Institute, a think tank that studies the workforce.

Last year, the institute, partnering with Strada researchers, found 52% of recent college graduates were in jobs that didn’t require a degree. Even higher-demand fields, such as education and nursing, had large numbers of graduates in that situation.

“No programs are immune, and no schools are immune,” Sigelman said.

The federal government has been trying to fix the problem for decades, going back to President Barack Obama’s administration. A federal rule first established in 2011 aimed to cut federal money to college programs that leave graduates with low earnings, though it primarily targeted for-profit colleges.

A Republican reconciliation bill passed this year takes a wider view, requiring most colleges to hit earnings standards to be eligible for federal funding. The goal is to make sure college graduates end up earning more than those without a degree.

### Transparency as a Key Solution

Others see transparency as a key solution. For decades, students had little way to know whether graduates of specific degree programs were landing good jobs after college. That started to change with the College Scorecard in 2015, a federal website that shares broad earnings outcomes for college programs.

More recently, bipartisan legislation in Congress has sought to give the public even more detailed data.

Lawmakers in North Carolina ordered a 2023 study on the financial return for degrees across the state’s public universities. It found that 93% produced a positive return, meaning graduates were expected to earn more over their lives than someone without a similar degree.

The data is available to the public, showing, for example, that undergraduate degrees in applied math and business tend to have high returns at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, while graduate degrees in psychology and foreign languages often don’t.

Colleges are belatedly realizing how important that kind of data is to students and their families, said Lee Roberts, chancellor of UNC-Chapel Hill, in an interview.

“In uncertain times, students are even more focused—I would say rightly so—on what their job prospects are going to be,” he added. “So I think colleges and universities really owe students and their families this data.”

___

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
https://ktar.com/national-news/is-college-worth-the-cost-universities-work-to-show-the-return-on-investment-of-a-degree/5762127/

A Message to Young Conservatives: Get Involved

Over the past year, Gen Z has experienced an unprecedented shift to the right. In particular, Gen Z men shifted to the right by 13 percent from 2020 to 2024. More recently, the assassination of Charlie Kirk has become an inflection point for young conservatives. But where to now?

The younger generation is not shifting to the right because of low taxes or deregulation. They are not shifting to the right for any concrete policy point. It is important to understand that the reason behind Gen Z’s rightward swing is that this generation, more than any other, has a front-row seat to the visceral decay of America.
*(RELATED: The Role Model Generation Z Needed Charlie Kirk)*

Gen Z’s conservative bent stems from one event more than any other: COVID. The COVID lockdowns prevented my generation from engaging in social interaction during the most crucial developmental phases in our lives. Worse still, the COVID lockdowns coincided with a period of rampant social media use among my generation. When Gen Z was not forced to interact, they shelled up online.
*(RELATED: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Exposes a Generation in Crisis)*

COVID spawned four years of boys in girls’ locker rooms, shameless DEI initiatives, and unprecedented illegal immigration. The culmination of 2020-2024 was an erosion of the societal basis of America, the likes of which we have never seen before. My generation was on the frontlines of America’s cultural baptism in critical theory, DEI, and the products of the Frankfurt School. More than any other, Gen Z was exposed to the most shameless of these ideologies. At the ballot box, these uniquely un-American ideas were rejected.

The zeitgeist of a Gen Z conservative is markedly different from older conservatives. We are based on one guiding principle: America is a uniquely amazing country; therefore, in every way, America and her people must be put first.

For decades, this simple principle has been violated in every conceivable way. From endless foreign wars to economic policies that benefit elites who treat America as nothing more than a means to amass their own power, the leaders of our nation have violated the sovereignty of the American people.

This has resulted in a new consensus in my generation: what we are doing is simply not working.

For many, this is a case for dismay and despair, a reason to write America off. This is fundamentally wrong; America, despite its recent flaws, has given each and every one of us a unique opportunity to succeed. The idea that the “American Experiment” has failed and should be written off should be repulsive to any American.

This is because America is not simply an abstract idea or experiment, but a people, a nation, and a home. We must regain the things that made America special. We must return to a guiding principle that every American is uniquely endowed by our founding principles and therefore should be the unparalleled focus of our government.

While conservative energy has welled up online in my generation, the only way to accomplish our goals is to regain the reins of self-government—in modern terms: get involved.

My message to my fellow young conservatives is exactly that: email your local GOP office, make the phone calls, meet your state representative, and express your viewpoint. You cannot expect your government to reflect your views if you are not collectively and intentionally involved.

Social media can be helpful, but it cannot be a substitute for personal engagement because there is no accountability for bad ideas.

There are multiple emerging campus organizations attempting to remedy this. For example, American Destiny is an up-and-coming nonprofit connecting right-wing college and high school students with right-wing campaigns and causes. More of this is needed.

If Generation Z wants to seriously make a change to put America and her people first, they must have a seat at the table. Now, if you want that seat, you need either a large amount of wealth or focused political capital. The only way to amass the second and effect change is to get involved early and often.

Voicing your opinion on social media is no longer enough; it’s time to take action.

Our founders were perfect examples of this. Our nation was founded because a group of highly engaged and involved young men were ready to sacrifice anything to preserve their right to govern themselves. We must regain our right to govern ourselves.

**READ MORE:**
– Conservatism Can Help Gen Z Conquer Its Biggest Struggle
– Young Conservatives Cannot Afford to Be Neutral on Family
– Liberals Aren’t Pretending Education Is Value-Neutral, and Neither Should We
https://spectator.org/a-message-to-young-conservatives-get-involved/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-message-to-young-conservatives-get-involved

Exit mobile version