They say that no good deed goes unpunished. There’s even a song called “No Good Deed” in a hit Broadway musical. If anyone ever had a reason to say that, it would be the Little Sisters of the Poor. Free exercise of religion may be a fundamental right in America, but they’ve been fighting for theirs for more than a dozen years—and counting. Founded in 1839 by Jeanne Jugan, whom Pope Benedict XVI canonized in 2006, the Little Sisters serve the elderly poor all over the world. In addition to chastity, poverty, and obedience, the Little Sisters vow hospitality, and their work includes operating homes for the elderly in nearly a dozen countries, including the U.S. Then came Obamacare. Signed into law in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act required that employers provide group health insurance plans with “minimum essential coverage,” including “preventive care.” By regulation, the Department of Health and Human Services said this includes not only contraceptives, which prevent pregnancy, but also abortifacients, which terminate it. The Obama administration threatened massive fines for noncompliance with this part of its “reproductive freedom” agenda. The administration employed several strategies to further push this on society. First, birth control coverage was to be free to employees; employers had to bear the full cost. Second, to shield its agenda, the Obama administration imposed the birth control mandate without going through the normal process of notifying the public and inviting comment. Third, it adopted a religious exemption not even worthy of the name. That exemption applied only to a narrow category of churches and the “exclusively religious activities of any religious order.”  If any other religious employer sought to avoid the mandate, they had to certify the religious nature of their work and their objection to the mandate. Religious freedom in America has always meant far more than going to church—so religious employers soon began challenging the birth control mandate. First up were employers who wished to operate their companies according to religious principles. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court in 2014 held that the mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires the federal government to have a “compelling” reason to substantially burden religious exercise, and says it may do so no more than necessary. Educational institutions and religious nonprofits—including the Little Sisters—and educational institutions also challenged the birth control mandate. While the certification process allowed them to avoid the mandate itself, they argued, it still violated RFRA by making them complicit in facilitating birth control and abortion. The Supreme Court consolidated seven of these lawsuits but, in Zubik v. Burwell, postponed a decision on the merits, giving the Obama administration another chance to craft an appropriate religious exemption. In May 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for new regulations “to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate.” In November 2018, HHS finalized rules extending the automatic exemption beyond churches to employers who objected based on sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. Religious employers had challenged Obamacare because the religious exemption was too narrow. But following HHS’s changes, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, later joined by New Jersey, sued to get rid of the religious exemption altogether, making both procedural and substantive arguments. Procedurally, they said that the Obamacare statute did not authorize making any religious exemption and that HHS had unlawfully sidestepped the normal rulemaking process. Substantively, the states argued that the broader religious exemption was “arbitrary and capricious,” violating a legal standard for all agency rulemaking imposed by the Administrative Procedure Act. The Little Sisters stepped into this litigation to defend the exemption, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled against them on both sets of issues. Both the Trump administration and the Little Sisters appealed and, in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court in 2020 reversed the Third Circuit’s procedural ruling but did not address substance. The court held that the “plain language of the statute clearly allows the Departments to create the preventive care standards as well as the religious and moral exemptions….We further hold that the rules promulgating these exemptions are free from procedural defects.” On Aug. 13, 2025, after an inexplicable five years, a U.S. district judge in Pennsylvania issued a nationwide injunction against enforcing the religious exemption, concluding that it violated the APA. Now, following that decision, the Little Sisters may once again be headed to the Supreme Court. All the Little Sisters of the Poor want to do is serve the elderly with kindness and dignity. If the Obama administration had even minimal regard for religious freedom, it would not have tried to force nuns to pay for birth control. And if states had any such regard, they would not be trying to make birth control and abortion crush religious freedom. But that’s where we are in America today. The Little Sisters show us what it means to fully, and humbly, commit to their faith. And by insisting that the government honor what’s supposed to be an inalienable right to practice that faith, they defend not just their freedom, but ours as well. The post The Little Sisters Continue Their Big Fight for Religious Freedom appeared first on The Daily Signal.

While the expression is “a picture is worth a thousand words,” as the race for Virginia’s next governor heats up, could it be worth only 15? That’s not due to inflation. It’s just that sometimes, 15 words may be all that are needed to change the course of history. >>> Sign up for our Virginia email newsletter But before we discuss those 15 words, for some perspective, let’s look at how just 14 words changed history in Virginia’s last governor’s race exactly four years ago. The 14 words I refer to are those that former Democrat Gov. Terry McAuliffe used in his ill-fated debate answer on Sept. 28, 2021, as he was running for a second term as governor: “I don’t think parents have the right to tell schools what they should teach.” Those 14 words cost him the 2021 election (which polls had him leading by a larger margin than Democrat gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger is currently leading Republican nominee Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears by). Those words might have cost him more than that, because it’s not a stretch to imagine that a two-term Democrat governor of a “purple” state with a Bill and Hillary Clinton pedigree—not to mention a ton of campaign cash—could have been the frontrunner in the race to be the Democrats’ presidential nominee in 2028. That was all done in by just 14 words—and McAuliffe’s insistence that he could not, or would not, walk away from them.   Today, the picture we refer to as being worth 15 words is the photograph of a pro-“transgender” activist protesting outside of an Arlington County School Board meeting where Sears was speaking out against the school system allowing boys in girls bathrooms. The sign the protester was carrying said: “Hey Winsome! If trans can’t share your bathroom, then blacks can’t share my water fountain!” Was just sent a picture of this person with this sign outside of Arlington’s school board meeting. pic.twitter.com/Ie0UC84jxR— Brandon Jarvis (@Jaaavis) August 21, 2025 That image is still circling social media a week and a half later. Though not wearing any Spanberger campaign identification, her shirt was emblazoned on the front with the acronym “WofA,” which stands for  We of Action, a group that has canvassed for Spanberger and is promoting a September canvassing event in support of the Democrat on its website. The protester’s white hair indicated that she might be old enough to at least have been taught about the segregation that was rampant in Virginia that led to the Democrat-led “Massive Resistance” in 1956. That was what it was called when the state closed schools in Norfolk, Charlottesville, and Front Royal rather than desegregate them in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown vs. Board of Education ruling declaring segregation was against the law. Since the photograph of the sign became public, Spanberger’s lead in recent polls has been cut in half, even though she strongly criticized it. One recent poll has Sears now only trailing by just 5% and within the margin of error. Spanberger posted to her X account Aug. 23: “The sign displayed in Arlington last night was racist and abhorrent. Many Virginians remember the segregated water fountains (and buses and schools and neighborhoods) of Virginia’s recent history. And no matter the intended purpose or tone and no matter how much one might find someone else’s beliefs objectionable, to threaten a return of Jim Crow and segregation to a Black woman is unacceptable. Full stop.” She has not addressed it since, but it puts her ahead of McAuliffe, who kept doubling down on his feelings about parents in 2021. Since the incident, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin has begun weighing more into the election, sending out campaign fundraising tweets and emails and appearing at joint events with the Republican candidates. Additionally, Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, did what few have been willing to do for the Sears campaign: contribute money—$500,000 to be exact—the lifeblood of any campaign. Will that lead to more? Since then, Sears’ campaign coffers have swollen to $11miilion, according to the Virginia Public Access Project. It’s still less than half of the Spanberger war chest but growing. Is this incident enough for Sears to turn things around, or is it too late? It occurred a month earlier than McAuliffe’s ill-fated statement in September 2021, and his polling lead was larger at the time. Taken together, that means this race may be closer than people think. The post One Picture Worth Just 15 Words Could Change the Entire Virginia Governor’s Race appeared first on The Daily Signal.

I recently wrote a letter to my alma mater urging the school to embrace ideological diversity rather than pushing their liberal agenda on students. It fell on deaf ears.   I graduated from Davidson College in May 2025 with a B.S. in biology and a plan to pursue physician assistant school. But during the fall of my senior year, I got involved in Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative student group, and began an internship with Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse, an alumni group focused on promoting free speech and ideological balance on the Davidson College campus.   I’ve always been conservative. While it’s true that Davidson College isn’t widely known for conservative voices, many of my peers quietly shared my convictions. But they hesitated to speak up or challenge professors’ perspectives, fearing grave consequences like getting lower grades or being ostracized by classmates and professors.   My college experience is not uncommon.   For years, liberal arts institutions were known for providing a diverse education offering students a multitude of learning opportunities. But a liberal arts education no longer holds the same value it once did. Now, students who attend liberal arts schools end up with leftist propaganda shoved down their throats. Once known for critical thinking, liberal arts institutions have become breeding grounds for liberal ideology—making them a dangerous place for vulnerable students.   At Davidson College, professors are overwhelmingly liberal. According to the most recent information I could find, only 6% are registered Republicans—compared to 40% registered as Democrats. That’s a ratio of more than 7 to 1.    And Davidson pushes its liberal agenda very aggressively.   To name a few examples from my time there:  In 2024, Davidson forced all student athletes to watch a movie called, “I’m Not Racist… Am I?” and randomly called students to the microphone to discuss it in front of everyone.   After President Donald Trump’s election, many classes were canceled. In those not canceled, time was given to “grieve,” as if we had lost a loved one.  My biology professor told our class that a woman’s research was important because of her sexual identity rather than her ideas.   During an introductory biology course, another professor told us that if any of us got pregnant, we should talk to her, and she would help us “handle” the situation.   The campus features a “Wellness Wendy”—a vending machine for sex items—with a poster attached informing students that student health insurance will cover the cost of and assist with transportation to an abortion. The poster says to avoid pregnancy help centers, which counsel women against having abortions.   A coalition of students and faculty accused Young Americans for Freedom of harassment for distributing pamphlets that dispelled myths about Palestine. Those that brought this accusation against YAF refused to share their identity. The so-called harassment pamphlets simply sat on a table. No one was forced to pick them up, open them, or read them. But the consequences of the accusation included sitting in front of a Code of Responsibility panel—sure to be biased—who would decide the fate of the club.   These are just a few of a long list of examples. It saddens me to think of the many stories conservative students across the country could share. Because—let’s face it—liberal arts schools are just liberal. Instead of fostering open debate and teaching students how to think, professors push their own views, causing division and discouraging genuine learning.  In my letter to Davidson, I urged my college professors to encourage thoughtful, respectful dialogue and help ensure that all students feel free to speak, question, and engage without fear of their grades suffering or facing rejection. That’s the American way—respecting fundamental rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. I hope that when professors read my letter they will humbly wrestle with difficult questions, modeling the very curiosity and analytical rigor that higher education claims to foster. The classes that I grew in most were the classes in which the professors played devil’s advocate—challenging arguments and demanding reasoning behind students’ positions. Though these courses were undoubtedly the most rigorous, that very rigor defines the challenging, growth-focused experience liberal arts students deserve.   Some of my most meaningful conversations at Davidson were with people whose perspectives differed from mine. These discussions stretched me to defend my beliefs thoughtfully, not only strengthening my convictions but also deepening my understanding of other points of view.   Thoughtful inquiry must begin with professors. When faculty consistently question assumptions, it signals to students that intellectual exploration isn’t just encouraged—it’s nonnegotiable. I didn’t receive a response to my letter, but when I asked for comment before publishing this op-ed, Jay Pfeiffer, director of media relations at Davidson, said, “Davidson College is founded on the principle of free inquiry and a commitment to the dignity of every person. We work every day to make sure our students engage with ideas that challenge the assumptions and beliefs they carried on to campus.”    I encourage other students who are fed up with liberal institutions to write letters like mine to their professors and presidents. We cannot stand for indoctrination.   Liberal arts professors have been dictators over their students’ beliefs for far too long. Students and their parents are the ones paying for this education, so they have the responsibility to hold educators to a higher standard—true freedom of thought.  Despite my professors stifling ideology, I loved my time in college. I made lifelong friends, I found a passion for politics, I played sports, and I deepened my Christian faith. I hope that future students at Davidson and elsewhere love college too, but I hope they get to experience what I mostly did not—true discussion, not an ideological echo chamber.   The post I Wrote to My Alma Mater Seeking Tolerance for Conservatives. I’m Still Waiting for a Reply.  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The following are remarks as prepared by Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., on Sept. 2 at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, D.C. There’s a special significance to this conference this year. Donald Trump’s victory was not just a victory for his movement, but for the ideas of the people in this room. National conservatism is an idea whose time has arrived. The battle for our future is not between democracy and autocracy, capitalism and socialism, or even “Right” and “Left,” in the old meaning of those terms. It is between the nation and the forces that would erase it. For decades, many of those in power—not just here, but across the West—have been locked in a cultural war with their own nations. We see that in many of the countries of Europe today, where the immigration crisis threatens to transform the ancient fabric of those nations—and all who object are menaced by an increasingly totalitarian censorship state. While our First Amendment has traditionally insulated us from the most extreme forms of censorship, America, too, is threatened by the same elites, driven by the same interests and ambitions. They are the elites who rule everywhere but are not truly from anywhere. National conservatism is a revolt against this fundamentally post-American ruling class. This revolt is a revolt from the Right—but also, a revolt within the Right. For too long, conservatives were content to serve as the right wing of the regime. They, too, waged foreign wars in the name of global “liberalism” and “democracy.” They, too, rewrote our trade policies in service of the interests of global capital. They, too, supported amnesty and mass migration. The Washington Consensus was a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It required the support of both party establishments to survive. Until President Trump, the mainstream Right quibbled over the Left’s means, but hardly ever challenged its ends. Conservatives cheered foreign intervention after foreign intervention—not to defend America’s actual national interests, but to pursue the same fantasy of a “world safe for democracy” that the Wilsonian liberals have peddled for a century. They backed NAFTA and welcomed China into the WTO—not because it was good for American workers, but because it served the same vision of a borderless marketplace championed by the Left, differing only over whether to trim a regulation here or tack on a labor standard there. But perhaps the best example was on the issue of immigration. The old conservative establishment may have opposed something like illegal immigration on procedural grounds—simply because it was illegal. But they took no issue with it in substance, and if the same thing was achieved through “legal” avenues, many of them would celebrate and support it. At this point, it should be clear that the fact that something is sanctioned by our government does not mean it’s good for our country. That much is obvious with various forms of legal immigration today. For decades, we heard that so-called “high-skilled immigration” was an urgent necessity. The H-1B visa, for example, was sold as a way to keep America “globally competitive.” Of course, we do have an interest in attracting the truly exceptional few, the very best and brightest in the world. But that’s not how programs like the H-1B have actually functioned. Instead, they’ve imported a vast new labor force from abroad—not to fill jobs Americans can’t or won’t do, but to undercut American wages, replace American workers, and transfer entire industries into the hands of foreign lobbies. We have funneled in millions of foreign nationals to take the jobs, salaries, and futures that should belong to our own children—not because the foreign workers are smarter or more talented, but merely because they are cheaper and more compliant, and therefore preferable in the eyes of too many business elites who often see their own countrymen as an inconvenience. While our trade agreements kneecapped blue-collar workers—a slow-moving disaster, decades in the making—abuse of the H-1B is kneecapping white-collar workers right before our eyes. For the tens of thousands of Americans who were forced to train their foreign H-1B replacements just to get their severance package, the fact that it was “legal” is little comfort. For decades, the mainstream consensus on the Left and the Right alike seemed to be that America itself was just an “idea”—a vehicle for global liberalism. We were told that the entire meaning of America boiled down to a few lines in a poem on the Statue of Liberty, and five words about equality in the Declaration of Independence. Any other aspect of American identity was deemed to be illegitimate and immoral, poisoned by the evils of our ancestors. The true meaning of America, they said, was liberalism, multiculturalism and endless immigration. In a speech in 1998, Bill Clinton said that the continuous influx of immigrants was—and I quote—a “reminder that our America is not so much a place as a promise.” Now, let me just say: I believe that our Founding Fathers were the most brilliant group of men to ever assemble in one room. Their ideas are central to who we are. You can’t understand America without understanding things like the freedom of speech, the right to self-defense, the ideals of independence, self-governance, and political liberty. But these principles are not abstractions. They are living, breathing things—rooted in a people and embodied in a way of life. It’s only in that context that they become real. Take a trip out to rural Missouri and spend a little time with the folks out there, and you’ll quickly realize that the Second Amendment isn’t a classroom theory, for them. It’s part of who they are. If you imposed a carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution on Kazakhstan tomorrow, Kazakhstan wouldn’t magically become America. Because Kazakhstan isn’t filled with Americans. It’s filled with Kazakhstanis! What makes America exceptional isn’t just that we committed ourselves to the principles of self-government. It’s that we, as a people, were actually capable of living them. But the Left took these principles and drained them of all underlying substance, turning the American tradition into a deracinated ideological creed. To live up to that American creed, they told us, we had to transform America itself. If America was a universal proposition, then everything we inherited from our specific Western heritage had to be abolished. So the statues come down. The names are changed. Yesterday’s heroes become today’s villains. The story of the nation has to be rewritten to align America with its true creed. On the Right, the situation wasn’t all that different. The truth is, by the 1990s, too many on the Right had come to accept the same basic worldview as the liberal elites they claimed to oppose. In foreign policy, trade, immigration and the domestic culture wars, too many conservatives defined the American identity as nothing more than an abstract and vaguely-defined proposition. Even if you didn’t want to immigrate here, you would be made to submit to that proposition anyway, via military crusades to bring Madisonian democracy to the furthest corners of the world. For years, conservatives would talk as if the whole world were just Americans-in-waiting—“born American, but in the wrong place.” America was, as one neoconservative writer put it, “The First Universal Nation.” That’s what set Donald Trump apart from the old conservatism and the old liberalism alike: He knows that America is not just an abstract “proposition,” but a nation and a people, with its own distinct history and heritage and interests. His movement is the revolt of the real American nation. It’s a pitchfork revolution, driven by the millions of Americans who felt that they were turning into strangers in their own country. They were the forgotten men and women, who wrapped themselves in our flag and drove hours to hear a real-estate tycoon from New York speak—because they knew he was speaking for them. They were the Americans whose factories were gutted in the name of “free trade,” whose sons were sent to die in wars that served no American interest, whose neighborhoods were transformed beyond recognition by immigration. They were the ones who worked the jobs, paid the taxes, fought the wars, and followed the rules that upheld the very system that attacked and dispossessed them—that mocked and smeared them as bigots and “deplorables,” even though it needed them to survive. And yet, in spite of it all, they stubbornly refused to forget who they were. They were, as Barack Obama sneered, the “bitter clingers”—who still held to their guns, their religion and their memory of a country that once belonged to them. These Americans had come to realize that their true adversary did not live in the faraway sands of some foreign nation, but in the halls of their own government. And in 2016, they discovered that millions of their fellow citizens had arrived at the same conclusion. In Donald Trump’s defiance, they recognized an echo of their own. It is their interests that Trump spoke to in 2016, and it is their interests that he remains loyal to today. And it is their interests, their values, their lives that the American Right must defend, without apology or remorse, if it wants to have a viable future. The Continental Army soldiers dying of frostbite at Valley Forge, the Pilgrims struggling to survive in the hard winter soil of Plymouth, the pioneers striking out from Missouri for the wild and dangerous frontier, the outnumbered Kentucky settlers repelling wave after wave of Indian war band attacks from behind their stockade walls—all of them would be astonished to hear that they were only fighting for a “proposition.” They believed they were forging a nation—a homeland for themselves and their descendants. They fought, they bled, they struggled, they died for us. They built this country for us. America, in all its glory, is their gift to us, handed down across the generations. It belongs to us. It’s our birthright, our heritage, our destiny. If America is everything and everyone, then it is nothing and no one at all. But we know that’s not true. America is not a “universal nation.” It is something distinctive, unique, and real—unlike any other place or people in the history of mankind. Western civilization was defined by its restless, relentless, dynamic spirit—a drive to create, explore and discover that spurred the West to heights of political, intellectual and technological achievement unmatched by any other civilization in human history. America was settled, founded and built by the most adventurous, the most courageous, the most curious and innovative and risk-taking sons and daughters of the West. Our country is, in this important sense, the most essentially Western nation. For our settler ancestors, the American frontier stretched out as a horizon of infinite possibility. It was here, on this continent, that the West realized its destiny. This, my friends, is why every great feat of the modern world bore American fingerprints. It was an American who created the Morse telegraph—and later, the telephone—collapsing vast distances into a single instant. It was an American who mapped the human genome, cracking the code of life itself. It was an American who invented the microchip, the modern computer, and the internet, ushering in the digital age. It was an American who gave the world the airplane. And 24 years later, it was an American (from Missouri, I might add) who first traversed the Atlantic Ocean in a single solo flight—a feat the world had dismissed as suicidal. It was an American who broke the sound barrier, who split the atom, who built the first skyscraper. It was an American who shattered all Earthly limits and planted the first human footprints on the moon. It was an American—from Missouri, I might add again—who devised the Hubble Telescope and mapped the heavens. This is who we are. We’re a nation of settlers, explorers, and pioneers—born on the ocean waters that carried the first ships to our shores and forged in the crucible of a wild frontier. Our people tamed a continent, built a civilization from the wilderness, and wrote our nation’s name in history. We Americans are the sons and daughters of the Christian pilgrims that poured out from Europe’s shores to baptize a new world in their ancient faith. Our ancestors were driven here by destiny, possessed by urgent and fiery conviction, by burning belief, devoted to their cause and their God. All nations die; most are quickly forgotten, confined to footnotes for the ages. But thousands of years from now, when we and our country are long gone, people will still know the name “America” because of what these Americans achieved. The people who built our country were not villains. They were heroes. We can no longer apologize for who we are. I’m a Missouri boy, born and raised. I’m from the state where Lewis and Clark launched their expedition. Where Jesse James lived and Daniel Boone died. The state that launched a thousand wagon trails, carrying American pioneers west to find their destiny. They called St. Louis the “Gateway to the West.” The frontier wasn’t a “legend” or a “myth” for folks where I’m from. It was real. It was in the names, the deeds, the land itself. My ancestors arrived there from Germany in the 1840s, during the first real wave of new European settlers since Missouri became a state in 1821. Back then, Missouri was as far west as you could go. Think about the kinds of people it takes to do that—to build a home at the edge of the known world. Those were the kinds of people our ancestors were. The first settlers in my state were mostly Scots-Irish—a hard, proud, fiercely independent people, forged in the hills of Ulster and the backwoods of Appalachia, ideally suited to life on the edge of civilization. They were the ancestors—as it just so happens—of my friend and our vice president, JD Vance. As the historian David McCullough writes, the Scots-Irish families that first settled Missouri “saw themselves as the true Americans”: Their idol was Andrew Jackson, Old Hickory of Tennessee, ‘One-man-­with-­courage-­makes-­majority’ Jackson, the first president from west of the Alleghenies… Their trust was in the Lord and common sense. That they and their forebears had survived at all in backwoods Kentucky—or earlier in upland Virginia and the Carolinas—was due primarily to ‘good, hard sense,’ as they said, and no end of hard work. For some time now, we’ve been taught to be ashamed of these things that defined us—to treat our curiosity, adventurousness, and ambition as a stain on our moral conscience. We’ve been taught that, by settling this continent and building our home here, we committed a world-historical sin, and that we should rue the day that our forefathers arrived in North America, and condemn their vision, their strength, and their will as an expression of something perverse and evil. We saw a funny little example of this just the other month. The Department of Homeland Security’s Twitter account posted an image of the famous painting “American Progress”—one of the most iconic illustrations of Manifest Destiny, depicting settlers striding outward to the frontier, with Lady Columbia watching over them from above. The reaction from the Left was swift and hysterical. In the Washington Post, a Princeton history professor declared that the painting glorified “an American invasion of other people’s homelands.” The Independent reported that—according to the “experts”—the painting advanced a “mythic narrative” that “erased the reality” of American westward expansion. The LA Times speculated that it “might be… Nazi propaganda.” Now, just as a matter of historical record, the Indians were perfectly capable of invading, killing and enslaving each other all on their own for centuries before we got here. They attacked, tortured, and brutalized our settlers, just as our settlers surely did the same to them. When we carved out our Manifest Destiny on this continent, it was not because we were less morally righteous, but only because we had more sophisticated tools and methods. But that’s really beside the point. For whatever human flaws one might point to, the American settling of the frontier was an expression of something deeper in the soul of our people. Most people in most places and times in human history lived by the laws of necessity—their thoughts and actions were all governed by mere utility, and nothing more. The value of a thing, for them, lay in what kind of immediate material benefit it could provide. Men worked, fought, built and acted for purposes as narrow as the walls of their own towns and villages: to eat, to reproduce, to survive. They were not interested in knowing what might lie beyond the sunset. They lived, more or less, the exact same way as their ancestors had lived a thousand years before them. That has never been true for us. The American heritage is not a narrative of oppression and evil, but the unfolding story of our people’s pioneer spirit—a spirit that drives us to expand beyond limits, to assert ourselves upon the world. It is a spirit that began on the frontier, but it would soon go on to raise up great cities, cure diseases, discover distant galaxies, create marvels of technology and art, and forge new worlds in its image. We’re not sorry. Why would we be sorry? America is the proudest and most magnificent heritage ever known to man. On July 4, 2020, as the George Floyd riots raged across our nation, President Trump traveled to Mount Rushmore to address the nation. On our nation’s anniversary, as anarchists looted and defaced and tore down statues and monuments all across the country, the president stood before the granite cliff face and declared: “This monument will never be desecrated, these heroes will never be defaced, their legacy will never, ever be destroyed.” If you want to know who we are, look no further than the monument that stood behind him. Mount Rushmore took 14 years and hundreds of men to build. They climbed 700 stairs every day to be lowered down on ropes over the cliff face—sometimes in the blazing heat, sometimes in the bitter cold—to carve the faces of our heroes into the side of the great mountain. There was no practical need for any of it. It’s just who we were. We were Americans. We did it because we could. For decades, the people in power sought to turn our past into a repressed memory—something so awful that we would prefer to forget it altogether. They made self-hatred and shame our new civic religion. Let me say this today, as clearly as I can: We are done being ashamed. We love our country, and we will never apologize for the great men who built it. To transform a nation, you have to transform the way it understands itself. In the French Revolution, the radicals abolished the old calendar and began the clock back over at Year One. The radicals of our time want to do the same. It’s why they’re obsessed with controlling speech. They want to rewrite our language itself. When they tear down our statues and monuments, mock our history, and insult our traditions, they’re attacking our future as well as our past. By changing the stories we tell about ourselves, they believe they can build a new America—with the new myths of a new people. But America does not belong to them. It belongs to us. It’s our home. It’s a heritage entrusted to us by our ancestors. It is a way of life that is ours, and only ours, and if we disappear, then America, too, will cease to exist. The sculptor who designed Mt. Rushmore intentionally left three extra inches of granite on the surface, so that natural erosion would gradually shape it into its final form over the next 30,000 years. What a confident testament to America. He built it so that Americans thousands of years from now would still look in awe at the faces of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt. This fight is about whether our children will still have a country to call their own. It’s about whether America will remain what she was meant to be: The apex and the vanguard of Western civilization. A strong, sovereign nation—not just an idea, but a home, belonging to a people, bound together by a common past and a shared destiny. Thank you. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post SCHMITT: What Is an American? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

UK Totalitarianism Update

The liberal media of today was still that same media that bashed America’s troops and supported our enemies during Vietnam. There was an updated version of that mentality visible during the Tuesday morning newscasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC when all three of them hyped China’s military parade marking the end of WWII; when, just a few months ago, they all condemned the U.S.’s military parade celebrating the Army’s 250th birthday. They also hyped how this was a powerful flex against United States on many levels. “China's president hosting Russia’s Vladimir Putin and India's prime minister. It could have major ramifications for the U.S., especially with India frustrated over President Trump's new tariffs,” announced ABC co-host Robin Roberts on Good Morning America. ABC chief foreign affairs correspondent Ian Pannell touted how, “Over 20 world leaders attending a giant military parade Wednesday, including Iran and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. Xi Jinping promoting this idea of China as a reliable, stable partner; trying to contrast with the Trump administration's often chaotic and punitive style.” He also highlighted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance and trade talks with China. “Now, these countries are taking on the U.S. on different issues. India making it clear they are not happy with the Trump's punishing tariffs,” hyped ABC chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce. Over on CBS Mornings, co-host Nate Burleson crowed: China is celebrating the anniversary of victory in World War II with the leaders of Russia and other nations, but not the United States or its most important allies. It follows a summit that showed nearly all of U.S. rivals lining up on the same side. North Korea's dictator Kim Jong-un who rarely leaves the country joined the celebrations this morning. CBS foreign correspondent Anna Coren hyped up the parade as a showcase of China’s “moment of glory” and a chance to show off their “newest military hardware.” She also pointed out that it was a great time for China to build alliances and show they could be a better partner than the U.S.: Well, that message was also conveyed over the weekend at the regional security summit in Tianjin, northern China where XI hosted more than 20 world leaders, including Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. At this week's events, Xi is not only asserting China as a stable and reliable partner, he's also showing off the country's alliances and its might and power.     In the news brief on NBC’s Today, co-host Craig Melvin reported: Chinese leader XI Jinping welcoming Russian President Vladimir Putin as, quote, “an old friend” this morning as the two held as series talks. Relations between the two countries have deepened in recent years, especially following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Today's meeting comes a day after both attended a summit in northern China along with India's prime minister. Tomorrow, they will attend a Chinese military parade in Beijing to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. North Korea's Kim Jong-Un is scheduled to attend. But just three months ago, all three of the broadcast networks denounced and smeared the military parade that marked the U.S. Army’s 250th birthday. On ABC News program The View, co-host Sara Haines clutched her pearls and condemned seeing our soldiers: I can't be the only one when I think of military parades, I think of Russia, I think of North Korea. I have these visuals of people saluting and doing things, and that's just not what I think of when I think of the U.S. … a parade that harkens World War II propaganda and just throw the money that way? I can't keep up with all of it. Fill-in moderator Joy Behar even floated a conspiracy theory casting doubt on the coincidence that the Army and President Trump shared a birthday. CBS Morning co-host Gayle King juxtaposed the Army’s birthday with the so-called “No Kings” rallies: If you were paying attention to the news this weekend, and we hope you were, you were getting a very different image of how Americans are feeling about the state of our country. Hundreds of anti-Trump rallies around the country brought out millions of Americans. In the meantime, the President was outside the White House. He was presiding over a military parade on the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, and it also happened to be his 79th birthday. NBC cut out the fluff and simply smeared the Army as taking part in a “spectacle” that’s “typically seen in places like North Korea and Russia.” While they all boasted about how this was China showing off its military might to potential partners and flexing against the U.S., they failed to note that China had already failed to come to the aid of a partner when the U.S. bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities. The transcripts are below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America September 2, 2025 7:04:39 a.m. Eastern ROBIN ROBERTS: But now overseas, a high-stakes summit. China's president hosting Russia’s Vladimir Putin and India's prime minister. It could have major ramifications for the U.S., especially with India frustrated over President Trump's new tariffs. Are chief foreign correspondent Ian Pannell is tracking all of this for us. Good morning, Ian. IAN PANNELL: Yeah, that's right. God morning, Robin. China touting its diplomatic, economic, and military might, as enemies and rivals of the U.S. are gathering in Beijing. Over 20 world leaders attending a giant military parade Wednesday, including Iran and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. Xi Jinping promoting this idea of China as a reliable, stable partner; trying to contrast with the Trump administration's often chaotic and punitive style. India's Prime Minister Modi joining XI and Putin Monday, jointly representing over three billion people and militaries over four-and-a-half million strong, standing shoulder to shoulder, laughing, smiling. Sending a clear message and challenge to Trump over sanctions and tariffs. Actually saying, Modi’s locked in this battle with the U.S. over tariffs, pledging partnership with China. President XI in a swipe of the U.S. calling for opposition to, quote, “cold war mentality and bullying.” So, this parade Wednesday is commemorating the end of China's war against Japan. It’s going to showcase the country's military might, and sending a strong signal that there is an alternative world order that’s now competing with U.S. domination. George? GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Ian. Thanks. Let’s bring in our chief White house correspondent Mary Bruce. And Mary, as Ian just said, clear signal to President Trump. MARY BRUCE: Yeah, a very clear signal, but so far, George, the White House has been fairly quiet on what we are seeing coming out of this summit. No doubt they are watching this closely. The message being sent to this administration is loud and clear, challenging U.S. global leadership and projecting an alternative. One White House adviser calling this show of unity, quote, “troublesome.” Now, these countries are taking on the U.S. on different issues. India making it clear they are not happy with the Trump's punishing tariffs. In response, the President taking to social media attacking India for buying, quote, “very little from the U.S.” and saying Indian proposals to cut tariffs are too late. Putin is clearly trying to shore up support with China, is the Trump administration continues to threaten consequences as Russia slow walks these peace talks. The White House continues to say all options are on the table, including sanctions. But, George, so far they haven't follow through on any of these threats. CBS Mornings September 2, 2025 7:11:27 a.m. Eastern NATE BURLESON: China is celebrating the anniversary of victory in World War II with the leaders of Russia and other nations, but not the United States or its most important allies. It follows a summit that showed nearly all of U.S. rivals lining up on the same side. North Korea's dictator Kim Jong-un who rarely leaves the country joined the celebrations this morning. Anna Coren has more from Beijing. ANNA COREN: Good morning. Behind me, on Chang-an Avenue, China will host its biggest ever military parade to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. For Chinese leader XI Jinping, this will be a moment of glory. As commander-in-chief of the world's largest armed forces, he will watch as tens of thousands of troops march towards Tiananmen Square, showcasing the country's newest military hardware. Among the guests attending, Russia's President Vladimir Putin, and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. It will be the first time Kim appear together with XI and Putin in what is seen as a direct challenge to the U.S.-led world order. Well, that message was also conveyed over the weekend at the regional security summit in Tianjin, northern China where XI hosted more than 20 world leaders, including Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. At this week's events, Xi is not only asserting China as a stable and reliable partner, he's also showing off the country's alliances and its might and power. A message solely intended for the United States. For CBS Mornings, I'm Anna Coren in Beijing.

Pro Tip for CNN contributor Cari Champion: If you're going to criticize people who "don't really understand tennis," avoid making a glaring mistake of your own about the sport! Appearing on Monday's CNN This Morning, former ESPN host Champion was discussing the ongoing U.S. Open and commenting on how, in her opinion, women players get treated more harshly when it comes to bad behavior on the court, Champion ripped people who comment on the matter but "don't really understand tennis." But just moments later, Champion thrice alluded to Naomi Osaka as an "American" tennis player: You know what I'm excited about? And when you talk about women's tennis, more specifically Americans' women's tennis..we have a new crop of women's tennis of stars, American tennis stars.  Coco Gauff by far is one of the best that we have in terms of eyes and people want to watch her. Naomi is making her comeback. I am looking for two huge superstars to take over that court and really give us our new world, our new era of tennis, meaning American tennis that's here to stay with some really dominant figures.  Problem: Osaka renounced her American citizenship six years ago. Explaining the decision, her mother said: "She was born in Osaka and was brought up in a household of Japanese and Haitian culture. Quite simply, Naomi and her sister Mari have always felt Japanese, so that was our only rationale." So much for not understanding tennis, Cari! Making her case that women players are treated more harshly than men, Champion pointed to a large fine that Serena Williams once received for a breach of "etiquette."  But Champion didn't mention the circumstances. At the 2009 U.S. Open, when a lineswoman called an obvious foot fault on her, Serena screamed: "I swear to God I'll f---ing take the ball and shove it down your f---ing throat." That kind of vulgar threat went a bit beyond an "etiquette" breach!     Note: Speaking of Osaka and Serena, at the 2018 U.S. Open, Williams put a huge damper on Osaka's championship win, her first in a major.  During the final match, Serena repeatedly berated chair umpire Carlos Ramos, calling him a "liar" and a "thief," and demanding that he apologize to her for imposing a number of code violations for her abusive language.  The award ceremony turned into a fiasco, with the crowd loudly booing in protest of the penalties assessed to Williams. Osaka was reduced to tears at what should have been the happiest moment of her tennis life. As one report described it, "Another Serena US Open Blow-up Mars Osaka Win in Final." Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 09/01/25 6:22 am EDT AUDIE CORNISH: Okay, we're going to bring in CNN contributor and host of Naked Sports, Carrie Champion. Good morning, Carrie. Thanks for being here.  CARI CHAMPION: Thank you for having me. I appreciate it, and I love to talk about the tennis. It's one of my favorites.  CORNISH: Okay, so people are getting into it. They're getting into it about etiquette. The Townsend-Ostopenko was like the biggest kind of attention-getting one. And then, I went and looked it up, and Ostapenko has all kinds of altercations with players at tournaments all over. Am I reading that right? CARI CHAMPION: You're absolutely correct. You know, it's interesting, because when this actually happened, and I'm watching the match -- I went to the U.S. Open -- I thought to myself, well, isn't this ironic in so many ways? A player known for not having the best etiquette or the best attitude, or yelling at certain umpires uncontrollably, having as you mentioned, crash-outs, is now giving someone lessons or some sort of lecture on how to behave? And unfortunately, it just really felt to me like it was just very high-handed of her to do so. CORNISH: Yeah. CHAMPION: And I'm glad that, you know, Taylor stood her ground. CORNISH: You know, what's interesting: that got a lot of attention, but there are a lot more incidents with the male players, I've noticed, as well. And during the break, I was talking with Stephen [Collinson], and he's like, the last time I paid attention to tennis was McEnroe, who also incurred massive fines, disqualification, right? I think it was in the '90s. Is there something about New York? CHAMPION: There's definitely something about playing -- for the American players, playing in a Grand Slam at home that it fuels this certain fire., but you mentioned McEnroe. McEnroe made a career. from yelling at people. He has commercials. He made money off of it after he long retired. And I don't know if you remember, Serena was fined, arguably one of the highest fines, multiple times for not having quote-unquote proper etiquette. And what I've learned is that when women compete, and I'm not standing up for anyone, but when they compete at that same level, there's always this tag team of how it should be appropriate. And now that we get to see what these players are saying on these crossovers and these exchanges. Look, I think all is fair if you can call them out. If you want to dish this type of criticism, then I should be able to respond to it. And Taylor gave us a good example. Taylor Townsend gave us a good example of how to respond, but I still feel like the officials at tennis need some sort of level ground. You allow the men to do it, and then the women get this reaction, whether it be from those who don't really understand tennis. And I think they get treated differently. I really, truly do.  CORNISH: One more thing, the match that everyone's talking about for today, Naomi Osaka and Coco Gauff. Their last matchup in 2019 ended up like they're comforting each other. It's tearful. But since then, they've both won U.S. Open titles. So what are you looking for in their performance today?  CHAMPION: You know what I'm excited about? And when you talk about women's tennis, more specifically Americans' women's tennis, I started off at the Tennis Channel when it was all about the Williams sisters, and Andy Roddick was saying goodbye to his career as well when I started off in sport. Now we have a new crop of women's tennis of stars, American tennis stars.  Coco Gauff by far is one of the best that we have in terms of eyes and people want to watch her. Naomi is making her comeback. I am looking for two huge superstars to take over that court and really give us our new world, our new era of tennis, meaning American tennis that's here to stay with some really dominant figures. 

Despite tough questions from fill-in co-hosts Kelly O’Grady and Ed O’Keefe, Monday’s CBS Mornings Plus chose to dedicate the “By the Way” segment — a block meant to do a deeper dive on one of the major headlines but often becomes a free block for liberal narratives — to a supposedly viral guest column from a rural Virginia factory worker lamenting the rise in cost of living and the erosion of the American dream. Unsurprisingly, that wasn’t all he said and what made it viral was its excoriation of President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill as cruel to the working class and only meant to puff up the rich. And sure enough, the obscure outlet this column was originally published on — The Daily Yonder — has billed itself as a rural news site, but is just a blog for hardened rural Democrats.     But as for CBS, O’Keefe kept it broad at the start: Most of us have an idea of what the American dream looks like, whether it’s owning a house with a white crooked fence, turning an idea into a successful business, or giving your children a better life than you had. By the way, if reaching that dream has become a bit of a nightmare, you’re not alone. In a powerful letter published by the Daily Yonder titled, “Living in the Shadow of the American Dream,” a self-described Virginia factory worker, farmer, and father of two reflects on the financial struggles facing his working-class family. In it, he writes, “I’m not ashamed of our life. It’s honest work and it’s full of love. However, I am ashamed that in a country as wealthy as ours, people like us are left out in the cold.” “You shouldn’t be able to carry $100 worth of groceries in two hands, but these days you can, and that’s not just wrong, it’s dangerous. I’m ready to ask one simple thing. Who is this country really for?” “So, if you’re in power, hear me. We are not okay. We are drowning quietly.”  Bringing in husband, father, and factory worker Andrew Tait, O’Keefe wondered why he felt “compelled...to write this essay.” Tait was vague: “Honestly, not really too sure what compelled me. I just know that doing nothing felt worse.” O’Keefe prodded him to say more, to which Tait said “every day” is “a struggle” and he’s no longer sure if the American Dream of “clean water, safe schools,” and “a living wage” are “ in reach.” Still only scratching the surface with struggles Americans of all stripes could agree with, O’Grady brought to light Tait’s actual ideology and political views, noting the (false) claims he made about the Trump legislation and then fact-checked him by citing the child tax credits and no taxes on tips (click “expand”): O’GRADY: And Andrew, I want to quote a line from your letter. You said that “when the so-called big beautiful bill passed, it was marketed as a win for working Americans. From where I stand, it looks like the opposite.” Now, a lot of people would argue that extending the tax cuts, increasing the child tax credits, provisions for more take home pay. Now, if you rely on tips, would help those working Americans. So, what specifically do you take issue with? Do you think doesn’t help those working Americans? TAIT: Well, for me, I think, you know, cutting of medical assistance and food assistance for the people who need it most is very important. Also, I think that some of those provisions are temporary, that are going to be a relief for working class, while the wealthy one percent have tax cuts that are now permanent. O’KEEFE: You know, that bill was written by, passed by a bunch of politicians, obviously. What do you think those in elected office are missing or forgetting when they’re thinking about the needs of the American people? TAIT: That’s just it. I don’t know that they are thinking of the needs of the American people. I think they’re too busy fighting with each other, Democrat and Republican both. I think that for a long time, every time I voted, it’s — who do I hate the least? And I think that’s wrong. I think we should find someone who is inspiring, someone who, you know, treats the position like it is. Like, it’s, you’re a public servant. You need to serve your people. Fact-check: The White House has noted the 2017 Trump tax cuts save the average family $2,000 a year, meaning they would have seen a huge bite taken out of take-home pay if the Big Beautiful Bill did not pass. And as we’ve pointed out in the past, the left has lied to the American public about the so-called “cuts to Medicaid” and ignored other provisions like baby bonds and money to hire more immigration officers as well as those looking to work in aviation. O’Grady and O’Keefe didn’t pry any further, returning to a broader discussion about the struggles of working people with Tait’s predictable talking points declaring neither party cares about people like him (click “expand”): O’KEEFE: You’ve obviously spent some time thinking about this. Is there anyone out there right now who you think is doing it right? In either party? TAIT: I just think we need unity. I think we need less division. I think that, you know, we could really just need to listen to each other more. O’GRADY: I mean, listening to you say, who do I hate the least? I think that does resonate. You and I have both covered a lot of issues. O’KEEFE: And we hear a lot of that from voters. O’GRADY: We do hear a lot of that. I’m curious, your article, you present the question, who is this country really for? Now that a bit of time has passed since you’ve published this, you’ve spoken to people in their reaction. I mean, what are you hearing? Do you think it resonates with them? TAIT: Honestly, it’s a little overwhelming. I was not expecting the feedback that I received. You know, I sent it to a few local papers, friends and family. But it’s just been an outpour of support. I’ve got letters from strangers. I’ve got, you know, interview requests. I mean, here I’m on CBS Mornings. Definitely not something someone like me does. But I think maybe it, you know, resonated with folks because I’m not alone. We’re not alone. You know, I don’t think that I’m special or different in any way. I think it’s all of us collectively are struggling and hurting. I think that, you know, as we live in this country, you know, we talk about the rat race and trying to get ahead, trying to get to the next promotion, trying to get to the next level. But then they keep moving the goalpost. You know, what I -- what I make now won’t matter in 15 years, in 20 years. And it seems to be trending that way that the more you make, the more that you have to pay. Concerning The Daily Yonder’s slant, here was their top story upon this story’s publication: “Neighbors Don’t Let ICE Arrest Their Neighbors Without a Warrant.” A few others headlines included “Trump Wants to Eliminate a Grant Program Because It Funds ‘Equity-Building and Green Energy Initiatives’,” “Texas Abortion Bill Could Disproportionately Hurt Rural Communities,” “In Texas, Federal Cuts to Renewable Energy Projects Mean Lost Revenue for Rural Communities,” “Q&A: Carbon Credits in Rural Communities,” “Medicaid Cuts Are Likely to Worsen Mental Health Care in Rural America,” and a column with the title “On Whitewashing History”. To see the relevant CBS transcript from September 1, click here.

The families of the murdered and injured in the heinous Minneapolis Catholic church shooting can rest well knowing that NBC News is going the extra distance to avoid "misgendering" the deceased murderer.Investigators say that 23-year-old Robin Westman fired at children and others praying inside Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, killing two and injuring 17. Westman died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound at the church.'Children were slaughtered. ... But NBC made sure the pronouns were right.' Investigators say that Westman identified as a transgender person, and the messages he left behind have provided some insight into his possible motivation for the shooting. Westman also expressed regret for becoming transgender in one post.NBC issued the correction after using male pronouns when referring to Westman."A previous version of this article used the wrong pronoun for the shooter. She used female pronouns," it read.Many on social media excoriated NBC News for taking care to observe the preferred pronouns of a heinous murderer of children."Children were slaughtered. Catholics targeted. But NBC made sure the pronouns were right," responded communications strategist Erica Knight. "Ahh, the sickness of all these people is so deep in the media that at some point after these kids get murdered maybe we the majority will turn them off and watch the sponsors pull their hair out. We need another brand of news outlet over the air waves," read one response."In an evil premeditated way, this beast plotted and tracked elementary school age kids, trapped them in a room and shot them with automatic weapons. NBC is worried about his pronouns?…How about a pronoun for NBC… A**holes!…Can’t hate them enough!" read another response.RELATED: Catholic schools begged Tim Walz to increase security before horrific shooting — he did nothing "The lame stream media, corrects pronouns for a savage killer of innocent children who is now dead," said one detractor. "I don’t think the main stream media in this country is even trying to be unbiased anymore. It’s all out in the open," replied writer Clara Winslow. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that investigators are trying to determine whether transitioning drugs possibly taken by the shooter might have been at least partly to blame for the attack. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The transgender Minneapolis shooter may have had anti-Semitic writing as well as a threat to “kill” President Trump scrawled all over his weapons — but ex-CNN anchor Don Lemon isn’t letting that stop him from believing the shooter could be conservative.“The Minneapolis shooter is reportedly trans, and now the right, MAGA, is losing their minds over it, making it a big deal, an issue. Here’s where the ignorance comes in. They’re so ignorant, because trans people can be of any different, many different political persuasions,” Lemon said in a selfie video uploaded to social media.“We need sensible gun legislation in this country that goes along with mental health issues. You can be a trans person and have mental health issues just like you can be a straight white man, who it usually is doing these things, and have mental health issues as well.”“Trans people can also be conservative. Could be trans and it could be a trans conservative person. I actually know trans conservative people, I have interviewed one,” Lemon continued, before showing a video of him interviewing a transgender woman who claimed to be a Trump supporter.“It’s a safe bet to say that the trans person is probably a Democrat,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray argues on “Pat Gray Unleashed. “Especially when it had ‘kill Trump’ on the rifle and ‘Jews’ that he used.”“Come on. That’s not a Republican. I mean, have you even looked into the Don?” he adds.Lemon’s proof that the shooter could be conservative came in the form of a man-on-the-street-style video he did once where he interviewed a transgender conservative.“I walked away from the Democrat plantation. I had to. Just ‘cause I’m transgender doesn’t mean I need to be a Democrat,” the man told Lemon.“She absolutely played him,” Jeffy comments.“Absolutely,” Gray adds.Want more from Pat Gray?To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.