Homan is drawing down federal officers in Minneapolis…because he’s getting ever more cooperation from local law enforcement. The bet is that Minnesota business interests are putting pressure on the government there. Keep in mind that the State legislature is very evenly divided so Democrats are not all-powerful. They do hold the State-wide offices but only via fraud in Minneapolis…and Trump’s actions have already heavily cut into their ability to carry that out. Basically, everyone is running for cover.
Keep in mind that the Democrats had hoped to have continual violence all year long in Minnesota: to hide and preserve the fraud, weaken Trump overall and goose Democrat turnout in November. Trump refused to play along – he actually did lower the temperature, while increasing the pressure (those federal fraud investigations are still ongoing and uncovering more of it all the time). It is very important to keep in mind that while Democrats do have power they are, for the most part, pretty stupid people…the smart people who built the machine are long gone…what is left is people who managed to get into power because of the machine, but who have no real clue how it works…nor that the most important part of it is keeping the cities livable. Trump is playing them like a fiddle.
The Washington Post fired a huge amount of staff. Bezos could keep them – the financial losses at the Post are chump change to him. But Bezos lives in the real world – and a money-losing enterprise doesn’t appeal to him. Nor does endless Democrat propaganda. Sure, Bezos is a big Liberal…but he appears to want a news outfit that, you know?, some times reports the news. One of the fired people put out on X a series of recent articles…they seem to deal with health care and I suspect that was the reporter’s beat. Ok. Fine. Health news is useful. But in all the articles I didn’t see one looking into the massive amount of healthcare fraud. You know: like how Los Angeles has more hospice care facilities than Florida.
Look, guys: you can be Liberal, if you like. It is pretty dumb – you have to believe some utter nonsense. But, hey: live as you want to live! What you can’t be is, well, evil. And it is evil to ignore all the money being stolen simply because reporting it would look bad for Democrats. You should still report it. Heck, you should want to report it. Long term, it would help your side if you hammered the corruption. That you don’t cover the corruption means you’re part of it…not reporters at all. Mere regime propagandists. I don’t think Bezos wants that and after some efforts to simply get the Post to start being a news outfit, it looks like he’s decided to dispense with the propagandists. For crying out loud, the money being stolen is supposed to help the poor you Liberals claim you care so much about.
Israel appointed Major General Ghassan Alian to head up their Druze affairs bureau. Not much: except Alian is a Druze. You know: not a Jew. Who is a Major General in the IDF. That right there is why we stand with Israel. Is Israel perfect? No. Does Israel make mistakes? Oh, some quite fabulous ones. But they are the only decent nation in the Middle East…and one of the very few decent nations in the world. We’re not owned by Israel…we simply recognize our kin even across the water.
Blogs For Victory 
The Trump haters have got to be pulling their hair out at this point. It’s a beautiful sight.
The reactions I am seeing are truly funny. There are efforts by those in the public eye (I just can’t make myself call them “leaders”) to stir up emotion with their ranting and raving, but I am also seeing the same efforts on social media in “comments” sections, as every now and then some feeble-minded foot soldier wannabe posts some whine about “kings” or how Trump is “destroying all that is precious” to us. But I am also seeing pushback, not from ideologues who might argue details but just ordinary people who are challenging these breathless accusations with replies like “Name some”.
Another entertaining spectacle is that of watching the hysterics in Minneapolis trying to deal with what they desperately want to spin as a victory—-the withdrawal of hundreds of ICE officers—-in spite of the fact that this is actually just proof that these rabble-rousers (question: are you a “rabble-rouser” if you ARE the rabble?) were the real problem all along. And Homan is dealing with this beautifully, pointing out that when the city cooperates with ICE it is safer for everyone, including the arrestees, and that once the city stops enabling anarchy everything suddenly gets civilized. The “victory” suddenly turns into a giant win for the government and humiliation for the mob—along with redirecting the responsibility for two deaths back where it has always belonged, which is with the mob and its puppet masters.
Case in point: The really funny responses to the announcement that Kamala has some really really exciting important news so exciting and important that we need time to get ready for the excitement.
On X they are finding things to complain about…and it is so very tiresome. Look, even if Trump does make mistakes – and we all do – then whining about it and Dooming doesn’t actually help. Plus, you’d think by now that everyone would understand that Trump does think strategically…what he might say or do today might be the precursor to something else a day, a week or a month later. Remember the warnings to Venezuela were months before we went in…as he also positioned other forces, probably put out some diplomatic feelers on it (pretty much everyone in South America ended up ok with it) and set the Navy to doing things like figuring out where the “dark ships” of Venezuelan oil were. It has been now nearly 11 years of Trump…if someone hasn’t figured it out by now they’re simply obtuse.
Poor babies, always scrambling to find something to whine about. What is funny is how so many of Trump’s “mistakes” turn out to be strategies that are only realized when they pay off. One of his greatest skills is his effectiveness at playing “Oh please don’t throw me in that there briar patch!” so the Left quickly organizes a #BRIARPATCHNOW! movement and writes the Agenda Media scripts and buys balloons for the big victory party, only to have Trump take advantage of their focus on the illusionary briar patch danger to accomplish half a dozen diplomatic or strategic wins while they weren’t even looking.
(This is followed by lots of stomping around muttering “that isn’t even FAIR” and “well, Melania’s movie isn’t that good!” and “is that a bruise on his hand?” etc.)
My dogs did eventually learn that sometimes when I pretended to throw a ball there really wasn’t a ball at all. But then they were vastly more intelligent than Leftists, and not in thrall to the domination of malignant thought-destroying hatred.
in other words … “SQUIRREL!!!”
We keep finding new and awful things covered up by the Biden administration. OK, to be fair, that might be an overstatement, as it implies some kind of direct action by the administration when it is just as likely that it was just total indifference and incompetence. But RedState’s article on the biolabs being discovered in Nevada does add to the always-growing list of things from those awful four years that have the potential for harming us far into the future.
The article also links to an X post by Tony Seruga that is very informative, as well as scary as hell. It’s bad enough to let China buy tens of thousands of farmland adjacent to key military installations, but then learning of biolabs in close proximity to installations like this is truly chilling.
Allow me to approach a sensitive topic once more, but I sincerely believe that this is one of our biggest problems in this country … the toxic feminization of America. Good article here
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2026/02/06/more-evidence-for-the-wokeness-as-feminization-theory-n3811638
Now this doesn’t apply to every woman of course and I hate grouping people, but this phenomena is hard to ignore. Look at the percentages of women in these industries .. they dominate. I can tell you personally that it’s nearly impossible to find a male working in the Title/Escrow business. It’s nearly 100% women. Rush Limbaugh spoke of this danger years ago. And here’s the other aspect of this dilemma … who is home having kids and raising families? Sorry women, but men can’t do that. We need to reproduce and children need parents in the home to raise them … the feminist movement has been wholly destructive.
Many women just seem very very unhappy and they take that anger out on the country. And I think I know why they are unhappy … they been convinced by the feminist movement that they don’t need men or children to be happy … and that is opposed to the natural rhythm of life. We need to return to our original purposes.
You are hyper-sensitive about the so-called “feminization” of America. I’m a woman, and I get it. I even agree about the overall concept, though not with your vocabulary. I just don’t agree with your focus. Your example seems to be saying that women drove men out of these jobs, and my perception is that women merely fill the vacuum of jobs that need to be filled. So where are the men who used to fill those jobs?
First, you take the concept of men becoming less manly and then link it to more women in the workplace, and you choose an occupation that doesn’t seem to involve much a challenge to masculinity. It’s not like these women have bumped men out of the way and said “here, give me that welding torch” and barged into Man Territory. Rather, it’s more of a natural expansion of the role working women have always been told was acceptable—-office work, support staff, admin scut work like typing and filing and, to be blunt, an extension of women’s “real work” which is housekeeping. Sally could be responsible for making a nice orderly home for hubs and then, if she insisted on having a job, she could become responsible for making a nice orderly office for some other man, and that was OK. She still knew her place.
Prior to WW2, women were pretty well locked into certain roles, in an economy which allowed for single-income families. Women might feel a little insulted at the “now go tie a pretty knot in those apron strings, Sweetie, and bake me a pie” attitude toward women, but overall accepted that some jobs were “women’s work” and some were for men only, even when some of the “men only” jobs didn’t require any special physical strength or uniquely masculine attributes. (For examples, look at the history of women working at Bletchley Park.)
But then the war came along, and many of those “men’s jobs” would have gone unfilled without women stepping up. Suddenly nurses had to learn more about medicine to become doctors, secretaries had to step up run offices instead of just filing and making coffee, and women started to learn that they actually COULD weld, turn screws, drive trucks, etc. and do more than just support the men who were really doing the IMPORTANT work. (We’re talking urban women here, BTW. Farm and ranch women had already been crossing that invisible line for centuries, because in agriculture the work has to get done and it doesn’t matter who does it.) And after the war, more than 400,000 of those old “men’s jobs” still had to be filled by women, because the men who used to do them were dead on battlefields around the world.
Then drag in politics, and economics, and you have a nation where it had become very difficult to maintain a home and family on one income. This coincided with a period in which a few hundred thousand women had learned that they were quite competent to do work they had previously been told was restricted to men. Mix in some Leftist propaganda about homemaking being beneath the dignity of women, and you have a society in which women are filling jobs once held by men.
But the men were still acting like men. They were still being husbands, they were still being fathers, they were still supporting their families and acting like men. Maybe there were a few more woman doctors, maybe their insurance agent was a woman, but their roles as men were essentially unchanged.
And none of that history lesson has the slightest thing to do with the “feminization” of America, which has zero connection with who does what job and is completely related to the wild cultural swings of urbanization, political propaganda and the oft-proved adage that “hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men”. This was true in Rome, for example, and had nothing to do with uppity wimmenfolk snatching the quills out of limp male hands and taking over the nuts and bolts of recording how many amphora of wine were in which cellars.
Your perspective is of what you think of as the “feminization” of America, which I think is very misogynist because it carries with it a strong taint of distaste for the women you see as the problem. From my own perspective, it is men themselves who have become weaker, and women merely fill the vacuum left when men won’t/can’t step up. This is aided, I admit, by a political climate in which it is easier for a woman to be accepted into med school than a man, as one example—but the people making these decisions have that power because men have voted for them.
What I am saying is that I think you have conflated cause with effect. I think you are saying that all these women in jobs that were once held by men is the problem, and I am saying that none of these women elbowed a man out of the way to get that job but merely stepped up to fill it when it became available—because some man didn’t. And if the woman had an unfair advantage due to politics, then it is up to men to, to put it bluntly, man up. Dig around in those tighty whities and find something masculine enough to get you (not you personally, understand, but girly-men in general) out of your funk and most of all out of your pathetic unmanly Identity Politics and start THINKING instead of FEELING, and stop electing the people who then create the system that minimizes you as men.
I wholly agree that we as a nation would be better off with more women staying home and building families and stable loving homes. We would also be better off with more men taking responsibility for their families and honoring their commitments to them. We can go back to how many boys are brought up in single-parent homes with no father in the picture, or with part-time weekend fathers, to look at the root causes of decreasing masculinity in men. If you are a boy whose mother is the parent who has accepted all the responsibility for the family, who is working two jobs and barely getting by because your father couldn’t handle the demands of manhood and took off to “find himself” (or, more likely, some other woman) that is going to shape your concept of what it is to be a man—a LOT more than finding a woman behind the desk at a title company.
You can look at what you choose to decide is “the feminization of America” through a soda straw, or you can zoom out to 3000 meters get a broader view—-and that view is going to show a lot of “men” substituting the cheap thrills of transient sexual gratification for true manliness, as they are the sole enablers of sex slavery, the clients of people like Epstein, the majority of recreational drug users, the majority of alcoholics, and by a vast margin the majority of those responsible for single-parent homes.
So I suggest that it is an error to think that a decrease in manliness is the same thing as an increase in feminization. I suggest that perhaps you have it backward, and it is the erosion of what it means to be a man—-socially, morally and intellectually—-that is the core issue here, not the face of the natural outcome of men retreating from manhood as women fill the vacuum they have left.
I doubt that you could find more than a few women, out of thousands, who are single mothers trying to fill both parental roles while being the sole supporters of their families, who—if given the choice—would not have preferred to have married solid, reliable, honorable MEN instead of man-children who define their manhood solely by the existence of their dangly bits but cut and run when faced with real life. And chances are, a lot of them have had to go on to run title companies, etc.
Oh I blame men for abdicating their roles to be sure. But these aren’t just my opinions …. I post articles of others, more intelligent than I, who observe the same systemic problem, and in fact one of the best articles I have read on this subject was written by a woman. Rush also spoke extensively about this …. If this country doesn’t reemphasize family and reproducing and teaching the next generation .. we will have nothing to talk about. Family is the ONLY thing that matters. Careers, awards, promotions, titles, etc., are superficial and bring no lasting meaning to anyone’s life.
Yeah, well, while Rush had some skills in understanding politics he was also kind of a jerk when it came to women so I take any Rush commentary with a large grain of salt. (Rush made a lot of good points but I never saw him for the genius so many did. Basically, if he made a point or an observation that had already occurred to me—and even been discussed by me—-if I were to call him a genius for noticing it I would have to also pat myself on the back for getting to it first. I always saw his skill as more in communication than in analysis. My husband was not very political and he couldn’t stand to listen to Rush, would end up yelling at the radio “You’ve already said that half a dozen times, so MOVE ON!”—-Rush’s habit of repeating the same thing as if we were all so stupid he had to harp on every little thing drove both of us crazy.)
You know me—picky picky picky about terminology. So I agree with the whole “feminization of America” thing if it refers to the phenomenon of men taking on characteristics usually thought of as feminine, even though it is insulting because those characteristics are unflattering stereotypes of women. I get it. Words like “bitchy” and “whiny” and “smarmy” are not pretty words, and are often applied to women. I admit that, even knowing that they don’t define most women. When a woman is bitchy I just think she is being bitchy. When a man is bitchy it’s more like “eeeuwww! ick ick ick” and I see a lot of bitchy “men” on the Left. Seriously. “Temu Obama” Jeffries is so T-deficient he makes my skin crawl. ( I find Lindsay Graham more masculine than Jeffries.) The thing is, Jeffries, et al, are not “feminine”. They are just not masculine.
I guess my point here is that using the term “feminization” to describe what are unpleasant and negative characteristics is insulting, when what we really mean is the NEUTERING of America. Because it goes both ways. The males are less masculine, with Walz and pretty much the entire Dem side of Congress as examples, and the females are far less feminine.
Their heroes are really cowards, like Mangione. Dem “men” stand up for their so-called principles by joining mobs and waving signs and screaming and their “political” beliefs tend to revolve around being childish and petty. How can you take a man seriously, much less think of him as a man, when his entire “political” philosophy is expressed in inane signs like “No More Kings” or “Cheeto Führer”? We see a similar pattern of superficiality here when trolls try to invade the blog but can only snarl, call names, whine about being picked on, and obsess about alleged defects in the people on the “Other Side”.
My long post was really intended to point out that we have a large and complex social and economic pattern that is unhealthy. Yes, it is essential to get back to many of our earlier standards, including respect for the role of the homemaker and the importance of the family. I don’t think it is hyperbole to say the future of the nation depends on it. But we’re not going to get there if we get hung up on words like “feminization” which have the double whammy of insulting both genders without contributing anything worthwhile to the discourse.
There is a lot of damage to repair, a lot of scar tissue to debride, a lot healing to accomplish. We can start by admitting that there is a reason for basic gender differences, that even the extremes have their value, and accepting that. Do we want all our men to be the obnoxious, crude, cave men of Tail Hook? Or can we accept that these characteristics have their place and do not define those men in the totality of their existence, as they also go home to nurture children, rescue kittens from fires, raise money for the handicapped and along the way kill our enemies as they defend the nation and its people.
And this is also a problem …
In the United States, approximately 76% to 77% of K-12 teachers are women, making them a significant majority in the profession. This gender imbalance is most pronounced in elementary schools, where nearly 90% of teachers are female, while the percentage of female educators decreases at higher grade levels.
When I was in elementary school, there were three male teachers in 7th and 8th grade classes, one of whom was Mr. Courtney, our science teacher and disciplinarian … he would scare the Jesus out of you if you acted up. Women can’t do that … I am sorry but even as a 7th grader, women never intimidated me.
Men can’t do what women do, and women can’t do what men do. We are not the same.
Family is the ONLY thing that matters. Careers, awards, promotions, titles, etc., are superficial and bring no lasting meaning to anyone’s life.
I grew up in the 1950s. My mom worked before she and my dad married, but never worked again after he came home from WW2, although she would have argued that being a housewife and homemaker was as tough a job as any she could have had outside the home. My wife worked part-time while my two daughters were in high school, but never worked full-time until after they were our of the house. Both of my daughters have worked full-time since they were able to, same with my granddaughter. I doubt our society will ever get back to the way it was when I was young, but, the pendulum may swing that way a bit. I agree with Mark, if the people who make the world work don’t have more kids, the future for their descendants is bleak.
Would your daughters and granddaughter prefer to keep working full time if they did not find an economic need to do so?
Don’t get me wrong—I understand the sheer drudgery of full-time homemaking and parenthood. I was not able to have children but the time I spent with friends and their babies and toddlers made me realize I would go stark raving mad if that were my full-time life. But at the same time I realized that I was not seeing the other side, the warmth of the family together, the rewards both large and small of the whole family.
So all I can do is get in my admittedly limited WayBack Machine and remember life when I was a child. Basically, the mothers were wives and mothers, period. They were farm wives and mothers, so they also did some tractor driving during planting and harvesting, etc. but in general met the definition of full-time homemaker. And they had kids. Four in my family, five in another, seven in another, nine in another. That was just the core family of my father and his brothers and sister. Spread that out to the people who married into this core and their brothers and sisters and their families, and I think I have a fairly large sample of full-time homemakers.
And what I remember is my mother and my aunts doing things outside the home. Busy as they were, they were not imprisoned in their houses. I remember lots of social events, clubs with meetings and dinners and church and school events. My mom and two of my aunts were in a little drama club that put on plays, and the whole community attended. There was lots of having-babies-in-the-hospital time in that era, where kids stayed with relatives till Mommy came home with a new brother or sister, and LOTS of overnighting with cousins. When you walked into a house at dinnertime you really had to know the characters to know which kids lived there and which were just visiting. (It was always “and who are you?” followed by “I’m one of Bill’s kids and this is Sharon’s daughter”.) There is a tendency to think that being a full-time mom means doing nothing but being a full-time mom and taking care of the house and making meals, when my memories are of dynamic women interacting with their families and their communities.
BUT… we didn’t have a lot on TV at the time so we weren’t constantly being exposed to things and lifestyles to envy, and a “vacation” didn’t involve a plane trip to an expensive resort like Disney World. Expectations were lower, which I think made gratification higher.
The argument is not about women working outside the home, but for all of us to simply remember our purpose. We are not here to toil in meaningless labor … we are not products, we are not slaves, we are not machines and we are not categories. We are children of God with distinct roles and He imbued us with the skills to fulfill those roles which brings about harmony, peace, order, and a beautiful rhythm of life. I think overall that society has lost the meaning of that purpose.
Yes.
The left has been predicting and highlighting every negative thing they can latch onto about the effects of Trump’s policies, but wait a few days, and, just like magic, we get this (Coffee & Covid this morning)
Another thing: the Left would have us believe that the public doesn’t support enforcement of immigration laws, even to the extent that the focus of ICE is the apprehension and deportation of criminal aliens. If that’s true, and I don’t believe it is) then the country is lost.
Democrats don’t have a complete monopoly on hypocrisy, but it’s not for lack of trying. (Hat-tip, Jeff Childers)