Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

A drastic turn. The post The Blondie song they made to intentionally “upset people” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Forty years ago, as a young USA Today reporter, I interviewed Leonard Nimoy about Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Nimoy was un-Spock-like giddy about the commercial and critical hit he directed and co-starred in. “The biggest laugh,” he said, “came when McCoy says to Kirk about my still mentally addled Spock [Mr. Spock had “died” two films earlier in the classic Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan], ‘He really has gone where no man has gone before.’ Because if you think about it — how did Dr. McCoy know that this was the line that opened every Star Trek episode?” To which I said, “Maybe that’s the Starfleet credo.” “Good point,” Nimoy said. The Athena makes no sense. The exterior is a weird black featherlike thing. No one has any idea how large it is. Corridors look like a shopping mall. I forgot all about the interview for three years, until I watched a scene in the inferior next film, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, directed by William Shatner. In it, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are hiding from the brainwashed crew in what resembles the Enterprise lighthouse room, near the statue of an 18th century mariner at the wheel of his ship. At one point, the camera pans down from the mariner to the statue’s plinth and the inscription on it, To boldly go where no man has gone before, as the most famous eight notes of the Star Trek theme play. My possible small contribution to the legend of Star Trek was more respectful and knowledgeable than anything in the awful Star Trek: Starfleet Academy. The show is so caricaturishly woke, it suggests popular X sci-fi commenter Jon del Arroz could be right claiming it crosses the line into based parody. But that would require the slightest degree of Dr. Strangelovian wit, sophistication, and artistry totally missing from the series. It also denies the fundamental truth about the showmakers. They hate white men so much, they would torch a brilliant franchise they could never create — yet a white man did — before trying to entertain them. Astonishingly, even in the pilot’s crowd scenes, you don’t see a single white male — or a masculine man of any color. This is not inclusion, its exclusion and fanaticism. Just when Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy got the boot for feminizing Star Wars into oblivion, Star Trek overseer Alex Kurtzman went all the way in with Starfleet Academy. There’s probably no sadder species than male feminists, and Kurtzman fills the shell. He got his start writing-producing Xena, Warrior Princess and learned the wrong lesson. Xena may have advanced the fantasy of “strong women” — beating up stuntmen who in reality would have chopped her head off — her success depended entirely on the Male Gaze, and the smoking hot Lucy Lawless in a skimpy leather outfit. In Starfleet Academy, all the women but one (Bella Shepard) are homely, overweight, or dykish, and all but one (Kerrice Brooks) — not coincidentally the most likable — are girlbosses, shown putting young men in their place. Of course, most of the male cast members appear tailor  made to be dominated by women, especially the weak mixed-race lead, Sandro Rosta, as Caleb. It’s not entirely his fault that the hack feminist writer kept switching his persona from a laughably tough rebel refusing to wear a uniform  (What?) — until forced to do pushups by the fat Klingon cadet mistress — to a teary mama’s boy. Caleb then gets one upped by an ugly butch instructress (Tig Notaro), who quotes Oscar Wilde at him, followed by “I love that dude.” Thanks to modern Hollywoke alchemy, an unknown inept female screenwriter, Gala Violo, became an heir to the original series’ stable of the finest science-fiction and horror writers of all time: Harlan Ellison (The Twilight Zone), Theodore Sturgeon (The Twilight Zone), Robert Bloch (Psycho), Richard Matheson (I Am Legend), Jerome Bixby (The Twilight Zone). But then, they were all white men so their talent would disqualify them today. Violo’s gender and agenda are far more welcome. And Caleb’s story is the through-line in her mess. We first meet him as an unconvincing little kid learning about space from his mother. “One day, when we have our own ship” she says, reflecting motherhood lessons nowhere in the universe. Mom is in the service of space pirate Paul Giamatti, earning an Acting 101 paycheck as an over-the-top laughing manic villain. Enter Starfleet Captain Holly Hunter with the most ridiculous long thick wild hairstyle for a 68-year-old actress — sorry, Federation officer — ever displayed. Captain Holly arrests Pirate Paul, who vents his defiance by spitting. Yes, Starfleet Academy’s version of Khan (“From hell’s heart, I stab at thee! For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee!”) takes the Moby Dick line literally. Captain Holly also arrests Caleb’s mom, much to her shame. “Separating children from their parents isn’t exceptional, it’s reprehensible,” she says later. Get it, ICE supporters? The fact that Caleb’s mom was an actual criminal dulls the analogy. In any case, little Caleb gets away from Captain Holly. We meet him again fifteen years later as a teen rebel (Rosta), and the captive of alien bounty hunters on a spaceship. He tries to escape them by biting one’s ear off — indicating we’re in for a classy show — then engaging in a typical modern fight scene with too close action and too quick cutting rather than actual stunt choreography. In this case, the spaceship crashes and everyone gets knocked out. Meanwhile, now Teacher Holly gets an offer from a wimpy admiral. We learn she had quit Starfleet because of the pain of separating Caleb from mom, not because she’d let a little kid get away from her team. Wimpy Admiral asks her to become Dean of Starfleet Academy and simultaneously captain of the academy starship, the USS Athena. Then he tells her where Caleb is — the prisoner of another alien race. Captain Holly gets him out on condition he become a Starfleet Academy cadet. Caleb accepts, but rebelliously, and they shuttle to the USS Athena. And here the bad writing makes way for technological ignorance. When I was a rebellious teen, the Star Trek: Star Fleet Technical Manual was a bestselling book, containing detailed blueprints of the Starship Enterprise. Models of the Enterprise sold by the millions. Because the ship was engineeringly sound, because the makers of the series respected the boys and men in the audience, as did the actors and directors. The Athena makes no sense. The exterior is a weird black featherlike thing. No one has any idea how large it is. Corridors look like a shopping mall. The bridge is illogically cavernous, making practical function inoperative. Who cares about a bunch of male geeks anyway? All that matters is that the Athena is soon attacked, disabled, and occupied by none other than Pirate Paul Giamatti. He lets Captain Holly have it with a clever line, “Payback’s a bitch.” But she matches his witticism with her own, “Blow it out your ass.” In fact, all through the humiliating assault that destroyed much of the Athena and possibly killed many aboard her, Captain Holly acts mildly perturbed. It’s up to Caleb and his new cadet friends to save the Athena with a bunch of technobabble solutions. And here’s the irony of ironies. The hero of the occasion is the sole young white male regular (British actor George Hawkins), who not only saves the ship by going out on the hull, he still finds time for shocking heterosexual flirtation with the sole cute white girl. So even when rejecting politically incorrect tradition, Gala Violo and director Kurtzman fall back on it. But not enough to save the show, and boldly go where no man has gone before. READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: The Harpy Syndrome Exit the Hollywood Women, Part 2 — Kathleen Kennedy Exit, the Hollywood Women

President Trump demands that Denmark, a NATO ally, give us Greenland. The Danes refuse and Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has said, in so many words, not only no but hell no. Perhaps Secretary of State Rubio — who is also National Security Adviser — could urge him to back down. Greenland is a strategically-located territory. It is in the path that Russian or Chinese missiles would travel to get to the United States. All but a bit of it lies above 60 degrees North latitude, and it stretches almost to the North Pole. We already have a base there. It used to be called Thule Air Force Base and is now called Pittufik Space Force Base, and it is relatively close to the northwest corner of the nation, well above the Arctic Circle. The base has existed since it was established in 1946 as a weather station. It’s mighty cold there, the average annual temperature being about 12 degrees Fahrenheit. It’s a place that young Air Force officers (such as I used to be) were threatened with transfer to if they screwed up. (Fortunately, I didn’t.) The president has raised tariffs by 10 percent on European countries that opposed his demand, including goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland. The tariff increases will rise, the president said, to 25 percent on June 1 and remain in place until a deal is reached for what he called the “complete and total purchase” of Greenland. Why ownership of Greenland is necessary is absolutely unclear. Trump has said that we need it for national security to build his “Golden Dome” missile defense system which is true. But the president could accomplish all he needs by treaty with Denmark, which is among our friendliest NATO allies. Or used to be until Trump made his demand for Greenland. Trump has also said that anything less than U.S. control of Greenland is unacceptable and that NATO would be stronger if the U.S. took possession of it. That’s clearly untrue. Russia has about 20 bases above the Arctic Circle. China has no official bases but its “research stations” there serve the much same purpose. Worse still Russia has, for more than a decade, been developing military weapons and equipment specifically to function at extremely low temperatures. Russia is prepared to fight in the Arctic and the Chinese are well along the same path. We aren’t prepared for war above the Arctic Circle. Denmark and Greenland could have welcomed the U.S. investment in its security. So why raise tariffs? It is destructive of NATO. Danish Prime Minister Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said last Monday that an American takeover of Greenland would amount to the end of the alliance. Why would Trump want to break up NATO? Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping want to destroy NATO so why play into their hands? Trump has little regard for NATO. Its nations, he is correct in saying, have done little to invest in their own defenses since NATO was established after World War Two. If we extended our missile defenses to them they could, again, deny those investments. They are, with few exceptions, already doing so already. Germany is not doing its share and neither are France, Italy, or the UK. A few soldiers from the NATO nations have deployed to Greenland in protest of Trump’s demand. But Denmark and Greenland have increased their promises of cooperation with the U.S. including more aircraft, ships, and troops from NATO nations. Both Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have held talks with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who noted that they and their Greenlandic colleague had “a frank but also constructive discussion” but their “perspectives continue to differ.” As well they should. There is no benefit to Denmark in surrendering its territory of Greenland to the U.S. De facto U.S. control of Greenland, as I wrote above, could be accomplished by treaty. We could, and should, expand our space based-missile defenses to Greenland. That would require us to also defend the NATO nations from missile attack. We can and should declare that we would defend the NATO nations from any missile attacks from Russia or China. Trump has his hands full with the crises in Iran and Venezuela. Our military forces are already stretched thin as demonstrated by the redeployments of our carriers USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Carl Vinson to the Middle East. He shouldn’t be making things worse by demanding ownership of Greenland. Trump is known for changing his mind quickly. Perhaps Secretary of State Rubio — who is also National Security Adviser — could urge him to back down. He must if we are going to hold NATO, such as it is, together. READ MORE from Jed Babbin: A Dying Regime With a Loaded Gun In 2026, All Bets Are Off A Trump-Worthy Year for the Military  

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) recently designated the Egyptian and Jordanian branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as Specially Designated Global Terrorists for their material support to Hamas. Additionally, OFAC declared the Lebanese Muslim Brotherhood, also known as al-Jamaa al-Islamiyah (The Islamic Group), as both a Foreign Terrorist Organization and Specially Designated Global Terrorists, and the State Department also designated the Secretary General of the Lebanese Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Fawzi Taqqosh, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. As OFAC claims, “[c]hapters of the Muslim Brotherhood purport to be legitimate civic organizations while, behind the scenes, they explicitly and enthusiastically support terrorist groups like Hamas.” However, in the wake of reported large scale diversion of charity funds to Hamas from Jordan and Turkey … the Trump administration should expand such sanctions. The designations follow an executive order by the White House in November 2025 stating that the Egyptian, Jordanian and Lebanese chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood “engage in or facilitate and support violence and destabilization campaigns that harm their own regions, United States citizens, and United States interests.” Additionally, last July, Representatives Randy Fine (R-FL-6) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL-23), and Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), John Boozman (R-AR), Rick Scott (R-FL), Ashley Moody (R-FL), and Dave McCormick (R-PA) introduced a bill calling for the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. The largely Republican endorsed bill currently has 34 co-sponsors in the House and 10 in the Senate. Muslim-majority countries that have already banned the Muslim Brotherhood include Abraham Accords signatories the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Kazakhstan, in addition to U.S. allies Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. The UAE issued a statement in support of the designations, calling out the Trump administration for “sustained and systematic efforts … to counter violence and destabilizing activities carried out by terrorist Muslim Brotherhood branches wherever they operate.” Egypt also commended the designations, calling them a “decisive step” that “validates Egypt’s long-standing position that the group is founded on violence, extremism, and incitement and exploits religion to achieve political objectives.” Saudi Arabia also made a statement in support, while Jordan seemed to give tacit approval, with a government spokesman stating that “[t]he Muslim Brotherhood group in Jordan has been dissolved for years, and this was reaffirmed in a court ruling in 2020. All its activities have also been banned since April 2025.” Mere days before the designations, the UAE eliminated some of its scholarships to the United Kingdom, citing a fear of influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on its citizens. The OFAC declarations mention ways in which both the Egyptian and Jordanian branches of the Muslim Brotherhood materially assist Hamas. For example, just last year, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood worked with Hamas’ military leadership and accepted Hamas funds in efforts to destabilize the Egyptian government. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood also provided connections to Hamas terrorists in order to enter Gaza, which included “regularly keeping Hamas abreast of their status and where and when they would bring in fighters.” A member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood also raised funds for Hamas when he was in Saudi Arabia. The Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan has also been involved in terrorism in Jordan last year. The Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan additionally participated in building rockets, drones, and explosives, and have funded this abroad through illegal activity. Jordan has also recently charged several Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Jordan of using humanitarian funds for Gaza to financially support Hamas. Jordan found in a recent investigation that the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood used 44 of its affiliates and other front organizations to funnel $40 million to Hamas. Unfortunately, Jordan has, without explanation, kept most of these 44 affiliates intact. In Lebanon, The Islamic Group’s armed wing, the al-Fajr Forces, were instrumental in coordinating with both Hamas and Hezbollah to launch rockets from Lebanon to Israel following Hamas’ October 7 attack on the Jewish State. The al-Fajr forces were also preparing, in cooperation with Hamas, to send terrorists from Lebanon into Israel. The Islamic Group also holds one seat in the Lebanese Parliament (Hezbollah holds 13 seats). The Muslim Brotherhood’s malicious behavior does not stop with its Egyptian, Jordanian, and Lebanese branches. A Turkish-based company called Waqf al-Ummah, whose leadership is composed of Muslim Brotherhood members in both Jordan and Turkey and who have ties to Hamas, has reportedly embezzled half of a billion dollars in funds that was intended for Gaza humanitarian aid. The scandal was even reported on Official PA TV News in November. (The Palestinian Authority, itself a refuge of corruption, is interested in this story given that it is a fair-weathered rival of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood wing of the Palestinian-controlled territories within Gaza, Judea and Samaria.) The Muslim Brotherhood additionally supports the Sudanese Armed Forces, who in turn have attacked Christian civilians and churches in Sudan, supported executing civilians both directly and through Islamist militias, and have used chemical weapons. One of the Islamist militias operating in Sudan, the Al-Baraa Bin Malik Brigade, is affiliated with Sudan’s Muslim Brotherhood, and was sanctioned by the U.S. in September for its ties to Iran. Due to the Muslim Brotherhood’s support for terrorism through its branches in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, the Trump administration was correct in sanctioning these entities. However, in the wake of reported large scale diversion of charity funds to Hamas from Jordan and Turkey, and potential links to war crimes in Sudan, the Trump administration should expand such sanctions. READ MORE from Steve Postal: While Lebanon Dithers, Israel Continues to Degrade Hezbollah Is Selective Immigration the Key to Reducing Antisemitism? Did Iran Orchestrate the Hannukah Murder of Jews at Bondi Beach?

The recent wave of protests in Iran has been widely portrayed in the American media as an ideological uprising — a struggle for freedom, democracy, or secular governance. Some commentators have gone further, treating the unrest as an early sign of regime collapse. History does not intervene because people suffer. It turns only when the structure of force changes. This interpretation is comforting, but it is deeply misleading. What is unfolding in Iran did not begin with ideology. It began with economic collapse. And how it ends will not be decided by the depth of public anger, but by a far more brutal question: whether the state is willing to kill to survive. A Small Bank With Enormous Consequences The immediate trigger of the protests was the collapse of Ayandeh Bank, a financial institution that was not systemically important in the conventional sense. On the surface, it looked like yet another banking failure in a troubled economy. In reality, Ayandeh represented something much more corrosive: a textbook case of insider finance in an authoritarian system. Ayandeh’s largest investment was Iran Mall, which opened in 2018 — at a time when much of Iran’s economy was stagnating, inflation was accelerating, and ordinary Iranians were seeing their living standards collapse. The project was not merely large; it was grotesquely extravagant. Covering an area twice the size of the Pentagon, Iran Mall functions as a “city within a city,” complete with IMAX theaters, libraries, swimming pools, sports facilities, indoor gardens, auto showrooms, and a “Mirror Hall” modeled after a 16th century Persian royal palace. The problem was not luxury as such. The problem was where the money came from. Economists and Iranian officials have described Iran Mall as a classic case of “self-lending.” Ayandeh Bank was effectively lending depositors’ money to companies it controlled. The bank was both lender and borrower; risk stayed on the balance sheet, while any potential gains accrued to the same elite network. When the bank collapsed, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency quoted a senior central bank official as saying that more than 90 percent of Ayandeh’s resources were tied up in projects it managed itself. This was not mismanagement. It was systematic extraction. Printing Money Is Not Rescue — It Is Confiscation When Ayandeh’s finances imploded, the losses were not absorbed by those who had benefited. The government stepped in, took control, and filled the hole by printing money. Officially, this was described as stabilizing the financial system. In reality, it was something else entirely: the socialization of elite losses. The result was runaway inflation. Iran’s economic crisis had been building for years, but it sharply accelerated over the past several months. In 2025 alone, the Iranian rial lost 84 percent of its value against the U.S. dollar. Food prices rose 72 percent year over year, nearly twice the average rate of recent years. Inflation here was not an abstract macroeconomic phenomenon. It was an instrument of silent expropriation. Ordinary Iranians saw their savings evaporate almost overnight. Wages lagged far behind prices. Money held in bank accounts became functionally worthless — not through confiscation, not through taxation, but through dilution. This is the core of public anger in Iran. People understand that their property was not lost because “the economy is bad,” but because a network of power, banks, and state money creation quietly transferred wealth upward. This is not about ideology. It is about survival. Misery Does Not Automatically Topple Regimes Under such conditions, protests are unsurprising. When people are pushed far enough, they will resist. But here is the most uncomfortable truth — one that Western commentary often avoids: Economic collapse, corruption, and mass suffering do not automatically bring down authoritarian regimes. History shows this again and again. Desperation can produce revolt, but revolt does not succeed when the state possesses overwhelming force and is willing to use it relentlessly. In those cases, resistance does not end in revolution; it ends in death. Why the Soviet Bloc Collapsed — and China Did Not This is why any serious analysis of Iran must return to comparative history. The Soviet Union and Eastern European communist regimes collapsed between 1989 and 1991 not because their economies suddenly worsened or because people became braver, but because the leadership refused to order mass killings. Mikhail Gorbachev would not command the army to fire on civilians, and Eastern European regimes depended on Soviet backing as their ultimate coercive guarantee. When that guarantee disappeared, the entire structure collapsed almost instantly. China followed a different path. The Chinese Communist Party survived because it chose to use lethal force — and demonstrated that it was prepared to do so without hesitation. From that moment on, the regime sent a clear message: resistance would be met with death. Politics ceased to be negotiation and became deterrence. Discontent did not vanish; it was crushed. Iran’s Choice Is Becoming Clear Iran is now approaching this same fork in the road. The regime has begun deploying what regime scholars call the “knife handle” — the judicial and security apparatus (as opposed to “gun barrel” — the military). Courts have accelerated trials, imposed long prison sentences, and carried out executions. Protesters are being redefined not as dissidents, but as enemies of the state and religion. Law is no longer a constraint on power; it has become power’s formal instrument. The knife handle and the gun barrel serve the same purpose. One institutionalizes fear; the other enforces it. Together, they can suffocate mass mobilization with chilling efficiency. This is not a moral argument. It is a political reality. Of course, whether the United States intervenes is a crucial external variable — one that could decisively alter the outcome. But even here, the logic should not be misunderstood. If outside intervention changes Iran’s trajectory, it will not be because “justice has finally defeated evil,” but because an existing structure of violence has been broken by a stronger one. History does not turn simply because suffering deepens. It turns only when power — especially coercive power — shifts hands. Conclusion: Failed States Do Not Collapse by Themselves Iran today is governed by a regime that is deeply corrupt, economically hollowed out, and increasingly incapable of providing material stability. It is also a regime that has demonstrated its willingness to confiscate wealth through inflation and suppress dissent through force. Such a regime does not collapse simply because it has failed. As long as it controls the instruments of violence — and as long as those instruments remain loyal — it can continue ruling over ruins. North Korea has already proven this. Extreme poverty, total repression, and economic dysfunction are entirely compatible with long-term regime survival. Iran’s real test is not how angry its people are. It is where the guns are pointed. History does not intervene because people suffer. It turns only when the structure of force changes. Shaomin Li is professor of international business at Old Dominion University

Vince Gilligan is back. The writer, director, and creative mind behind the award-winning drama Breaking Bad and the equally successful spin-off series Better Call Saul has stepped away from the crime world and returned to his roots as a science fiction writer, as he did with The X-Files. His new show on Apple TV, Pluribus, takes a different approach to the apocalyptic, doomsday themes we’re familiar with. In Vince Gilligan’s mind, the end of the world comes with a smile. Pluribus certainly rivals Rod Serling’s The Twilight Zone in using sci-fi tropes to ask thought-provoking questions that make for great television. The show begins with astronomers discovering a radio transmission from 600 light-years away. The signal turns out to be an RNA sequence, and a government lab recreates it. It turns out to be an alien virus or “psychic glue” that, after a year and a half, turns the whole world into a collective hive mind known as “The Joining.” In other words, all humanity is a homogenized collective consciousness. The title Pluribus comes from the Latin phrase e pluribus unum, “out of many, one”, the American motto. The pilot episode, similarly, is titled “We is us.” Unlike typical dystopian shows such as The Walking Dead, Pluribus presents a hive mind that makes humanity perpetually happy and peaceful, offering a fresh perspective. There are, however, thirteen people on Earth immune to the virus, among them is our protagonist, Carol Sturka, a cynical fantasy romance author. The character, played by Rhea Seehorn, is defiant against the hive mind, especially after her only friend and publicist, Helen, died during the joining. It’s only fitting that the tagline for the show is, “The most miserable person on Earth must save the world from happiness.” The question Pluribus asks is not whether humanity can save itself, but whether it is even worth saving, or whether the responsibility is worth the effort. When Carol organizes a meeting with the remaining survivors to devise a plan to reverse everything that happened, none of them wants to go along with it because they like this new world. They reject Carol’s rant on freedom and independence when one of the immune, Koumba, reminds her that “no one is being robbed or murdered” and “No one is in prison.” Unlike most end-of-the-world sci-fi dramas, Pluribus doesn’t portray Carol as a hero or villain. She’s more of an empathetic character to watch and understand how someone can persevere under these circumstances. There aren’t any climactic battles or fights; instead, significant time is spent with Carol in desperate solitude, watching TV reruns, lighting off fireworks, and stealing artifacts, including a Georgia O’Keeffe painting. In fact, we get to meet Zosia (Karolina Wydra), who the hive mind has selected to chaperone Carol, due to her similarity to a character in her own Wycaro novels, in this new walk of life. As a member of the hive mind, Zosia explains that they want Carol to be happy and join them. In turn, Carol learns that they can’t lie or deny any of her requests. They also cannot force her to participate without her permission, as they are pacifists in nature. Despite Zosia’s harmonious companionship, Carol still makes it her mission to return humanity to the way it was. Along the way, though, Carol’s endurance begins to wane. She lets her continuing relationship with Zosia moderate her stance against the new order. She makes temporary peace with the way things are and chooses endless thrill-seeking over saving the world. On the flip side we meet Manousos, an uptight Paraguayan who has barricaded himself from the rest of the world, seeking a cure. Unlike Carol’s conflicting emotions toward the hive mind, Manousos’s anti-communist stance rejects the alien virus at all costs. When he finally meets Carol, we seem to arrive at the crux of the show. Manousos poignantly asks her, “Isn’t it evil to value a human the same as an ant?” Gilligan’s deep dive into societal issues prompts viewers to consider whether we would sacrifice the human condition for a life of unobstructed satisfaction and control over our choices, echoing current debates about individual freedom versus collective security. The show suggests that perhaps people might give up their own thoughts in exchange for safety and security, making the series highly relevant to contemporary societal concerns. Admittedly, the world of Pluribus sounds like a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren fever dream. It’s the collective suppressing the individual, which is a libertarian theme echoed by philosopher Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged. Creative expression ceases to exist when a population forces us to think and act in unison. Perhaps unintentionally, the show repudiates the leftist utopian vision embedded in modern political thought. History offers no shortage of warnings — from Russia to China — where collectivism was embraced with enthusiasm and ended in catastrophe. Even in contemporary New York, Mayor Mamdani’s boast that “we will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism” sounds less like civic leadership than a line lifted straight from Zosia’s mouth. These are moral quandaries as old as the book of Genesis, and Pluribus certainly rivals Rod Serling’s The Twilight Zone in using sci-fi tropes to ask thought-provoking questions that make for great television, which is why it is a Golden Globe winner. In the age of copycat shows, Vince Gilligan continues to create original, compelling TV dramas. READ MORE from Alex Adkins: Mamdani Won, But Socialism Still Lost The Elusive ‘Conservative Consensus’ Meet Graham Platner: The Latest Democratic Dud for Senate    

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in key Title IX cases. That matters. The case law matters. The legal clarity matters. Women’s sports are for women and girls. That truth does not change based on political pressure or changing language, and the American people know it. But here is the uncomfortable truth: even a strong ruling from the Supreme Court will not, by itself, save girls’ sports. Why? Because the biggest failures right now are not happening at the federal level. They are happening in state legislatures and local school districts that have refused to act clearly and rationally, even as the law has become clearer. At the federal level, momentum is moving in the right direction. Courts blocked the Biden administration’s 2024 attempt to rewrite Title IX by regulation, issuing a nationwide injunction that stopped enforcement. President Donald Trump’s executive order restoring Title IX’s original meaning, protecting female sports based on biological sex, remains in effect. Federal agencies are now acknowledging what the law requires. Under the leadership of Linda McMahon, the Department of Education is actively investigating states accused of allowing males into girls’ sports in violation of Title IX. The Department of Justice has been unequivocal. In correspondence with the America First Policy Institute, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon stated plainly that when males compete in female-only sports, “the protections afforded to female athletes by Title IX are lost — and quite simply, the law is broken.” There’s your clarity. And yet, across the country, girls are still losing scholarships, podium spots, roster positions, and privacy and dignity in locker rooms and restrooms. Not because the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled yet, but because states and school boards have failed to update their policies. Title IX was created to guarantee equal athletic opportunity for females. That promise collapses when boys are allowed into girls’ sports. Federal courts may interpret the law, but states and local officials decide whether it is enforced on the ground. Too many state legislatures have delayed action, citing “ongoing litigation.” Too many school boards have adopted vague, loophole-filled policies or quietly changed eligibility rules while hoping no one notices. If that continues, even a favorable Supreme Court ruling will have a limited effect. Court decisions do not automatically rewrite state law. They do not draft school district policy. They do not enforce rules in local gyms and stadiums. That work happens closer to home. This is where women must step forward. Title IX exists because women demanded it. And it will only survive if women demand that it be enforced, clearly and unapologetically, at the state and local level. Mothers, female athletes, and community leaders must press legislators and school boards with a simple question: Why are you allowing girls to lose opportunities the law guarantees them? Waiting is a choice. Ambiguity is a choice. And girls pay the price. Athletes and coaches also have a critical role to play. They understand competition. They know the difference between fair play and cheating. They know that size, strength, and speed matter, and pretending otherwise doesn’t make sports fair. When athletes and coaches speak plainly about what is happening, it becomes much harder for state and local officials to hide behind process or politics. Silence in sports has allowed this problem to spread. Leadership in sports can stop it. The Supreme Court will rule. But whether that ruling has real impact depends on what happens next in statehouses and school board meetings. So let’s be clear about what must happen now. States must pass clear laws defining girls’ sports based on biological sex. School boards must adopt and enforce policies that protect female athletes and female-only spaces. And women, athletes, and coaches must be loud, organized, and relentless in holding them accountable. The federal government is doing its job. The courts are doing theirs. Now it is time for states and local leaders to do theirs before more girls lose opportunities they can never get back. Women’s sports are for women and girls. That truth does not change based on political pressure or changing language, and the American people know it. On behalf of young women across the Republic, we will not back down or accept excuses. We will push every state and every school to comply with federal law. This is our moment. This is our mission. And we will not fail. READ MORE: Supporters and Opponents of Boys in Girls’ Sports Go Head-to-Head Girls Are Now Being Banned From Sports for Wanting to Play Against Girls There Is No Virtue Left to Signal Stacey Schieffelin is the Chair of America First Women’s Initiative, Chief of External Affairs, and Director of Talent & Culture at America First Policy Institute. Frank D. Murphy is the Chair of Athletes for America and Director of Community Impact at America First Policy Institute.