The following is a preview of Daily Signal Politics Editor Bradley Devlin’s interview with Helen Andrews on “The Signal Sitdown.” The full interview premieres on The Daily Signal’s YouTube page at 6:30 a.m. Eastern on Oct. 30. For the past half decade or more, conservative intellectuals have tried to answer the question: Where did woke come from? Some believe it is rebranded cultural Marxism. Others say it came from academia with the postmodern rejection of objective truth ultimately leading to the weaponization of culture. Maybe it came from the global corporations because woke is the ideology of the new managerial elite in late-stage neo-liberalism. But perhaps “woke” and its offspring like “cancel culture” came from something called “The Great Feminization.” Helen Andrews, author of “Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster,” recently wrote an essay called “The Great Feminization,” a term borrowed from the pseudonymous online writer J. Stone, that explains how “woke” is “an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.” She joins “The Signal Sitdown” this week to discuss. Like many conservative intellectuals, Andrews has been in search of the source of woke. The other theories about wokeness’s origins were unsatisfactory. “All of those theories have merit to them,” Andrews said, but “in most cases, something about the mechanism didn’t seem to be entirely clear to me.” Such is the case with the idea that wokeness is a rebranded kind of cultural Marxism. “There are some people who see an ideological genealogy of wokeness,” Andrews told The Daily Signal. “They say it’s cultural Marxism, and that’s spread on the universities and the universities infected everybody else and that’s why we got wokeness everywhere all at once.”  However, “the weakness of the ‘wokeness is cultural Marxism’ theory for me is that I saw wokeness erupt in areas of our society that are not remotely Marxist, like big business Fortune 500 companies,” Andrews explained. “Wokeness tended to show up in the most unexpected places.” “I think the moment that I knew wokeness was different than [political correctness] or any of the old previous iterations was when people started getting fired from NFL teams or from NASCAR,”’ Andrews continued. “Why is NASCAR displaying wokeness? You would think that would be the last place you would wanna look to find it—or Wall Street firms.” “These are not hotbeds of wokeness,” Andrews claimed. “It didn’t seem really to be ideological at all. The common pattern was feminization.” The theory of “The Great Feminization” is that female representation at many institutions has achieved a critical mass that has altered the way not only these institutions operate but how society operates writ large. “We had a big fight called feminism in the 1970s over whether or not we thought women could be lawyers. And we decided that they could, and that’s great,” Andrews explained. “But it took a long time to go from token representation of the kind that was achieved in the heyday of second-wave feminism to what we have now.” What we have now is an outgrowth of the second-wave feminism that has permeated throughout our institutions. “Why the Great Feminization thesis resonates with me so strongly is because just the timing fits,” Andrews added. While many of the institutions impacted by “The Great Feminization” began adding women to their ranks in the 1960s and 1970s, women are now not only represented, but make up growing majorities of these institutions. “Law schools became majority female in 2016,” said Andrews. “University professors? You thought it would’ve been earlier, I would’ve guessed it would’ve been earlier, but no, that tipped over only just in the last five years. Medical schools became majority female in the last five years. The white collar workforce overall—most workers with a college degree in America are women.” “There has never been a society in the history of planet Earth where women have been a majority of lawyers, or a majority of doctors, or a majority of managers in management positions in businesses and nonprofits,” Andrews later said. “Whether or not you think feminization is a problem, everybody, even people who hate me and think I’m a hater, needs to acknowledge that we are in uncharted territory here. The great feminization is definitely going to cause new challenges or new changes to the way society functions that we have never seen before—not our country, not any country.” The timing fits with the rise of wokeness and cancel culture. “Wokeness seems to me like a repudiation of rational debate,” Andrews said. At it’s core, wokeness is “the intrusion of identity politics into previously neutral arenas and the erection of taboos surrounding what kinds of things you are and aren’t allowed to question, hiding more and more debatable claims behind curtains of, ‘how dare you push back on that!’” “To connect this back to feminization, one of the consistent differences between men and women… is that women tend to be much more caring towards people they regard as victims,” Andrews told The Daily Signal. “If you are able to frame a political issue as looking out for a weak or a victim class, then it is much easier to get women on board with it, and I think that is what wokeness does across the board every time.” Wokeness closes off more avenues of rational debate “by continuing to accumulate more and more sacred victim classes that you’re not allowed to question.” How to roll back wokeness, then, is linked to rolling back “The Great Feminization.” Reversing “The Great Feminization” starts with restoring an equal playing field: Put an end to diversity boosts for female applicants to colleges or jobs. Narrow and define anti-discrimination law. “The weapon that these schoolmarms in the HR department have to wield is federal law because it is illegal as a matter of anti-discrimination law to have a workplace that is unwelcoming to women and that has been interpreted by judges extremely broadly,” Andrews told The Daily Signal. “It is only by massively incentivizing women to enter paid work that we have been able to create the situation where they are more than half of young associates at law firms,” she explained. “But if we take those thumbs off the scale, I think that great feminization will recede.” Andrews concluded: “I’m confident that’s what would occur in America if we stopped deliberately manipulating gender relations in the toxic ways we’ve been doing so far.” The post There’s a Hidden Revolution Happening. It’s Called ‘The Great Feminization’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Members of Congress come from all walks of life, but a number of those lawmakers have backgrounds as state financial officers—auditors and treasurers, who determine how states invest and employ their funds. Some prominent Republicans say that background of conservative money management has made them uniquely motivated to curtail Congress’ spending. On Wednesday, the State Financial Officers Foundation, a network of conservative state financial officers, gathered for a panel discussion in Washington to discuss how alumni are applying their experience on the state level toward fiscally conservative legislation in Congress. Rep. Riley Moore, R-W.Va. Rep. Riley Moore is a freshman in the House, but is already in a place of prominence as a member of the Appropriations Committee, which makes decisions on federal spending.  Moore, a nephew of Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., told The Daily Signal that he draws on his experience as state treasurer of West Virginia in his work. “It was hugely beneficial to me when I was making my case to get on Appropriations. I’m the only freshman Republican or Democrat on Appropriations,” he told The Daily Signal. “Had I not had that state financial officer’s background, I’m not sure I’d be on that committee.” During his tenure as treasurer, Moore pursued pro-natural gas policies, such as divesting state pension funds from BlackRock for its use of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria in making investments. West Virginia’s economy has historically relied on coal and natural gas. He also worked with state legislators on passing legislation to blacklist financial institutions from doing business with the West Virginia government “if their policies conflicted with or boycotted the energy industry.” In Congress, Moore has left his mark on the ongoing appropriations process in a similar way, introducing an amendment into the House’s financial services funding bill to clamp down on credit-rating agencies using ESG criteria, a policy he says has negatively affected his state’s bond rating. As West Virginia’s State Treasurer, I was the first elected official in America to divest my state’s tax dollars from BlackRock that leveraged ESG policies to destroy the fossil fuel industries of my state.Today, my amendment ensures that rating agencies cannot use ESG to… pic.twitter.com/BgXR4PXLbH— Rep. Riley M. Moore (@RepRileyMoore) September 3, 2025 His amendment would require the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to report on which agencies use ESG criteria in order to assist Congress in addressing the negative effects on states’ finances. Moore also comes from a state that, like many others, has a balanced-budget amendment, meaning the state legislature has to make tough decisions on funding each year, and the state treasurer works within the parameters of those budgets. He says that drives him toward a fiscally conservative approach. “At a state level, obviously we’re always doing more with less. That’s what we do. Right here [in Washington], it’s kind of the opposite,” he said. “I think being able to bring that perspective to the appropriation process is certainly something that’s beneficial, not just to the committee, but I think the country as a whole.” Rep. Jimmy Patronis, R-Fla. Rep. Jimmy Patronis similarly said it has been a culture shock coming from Florida, which has a balanced-budget amendment, to Congress, which has not passed a balanced budget in a quarter of a century. Patronis was the chief financial officer of Florida before being elected to Congress in a special election to fill the seat vacated by former Rep. Matt Gaetz. Rep. Jimmy Patronis, R-Fla. (Octavio Jones/Getty Images) “The states have been able to be more disciplined, but it’s taken constitutional amendments in those states in order to force some of those policies to be the law of the land,” Patronis told The Daily Signal.  “Could we do that in Washington? It’s hard. One thing I’ve learned in Washington: People do enjoy spending money, and I come from a background being a small-business person, where I’m always trying to find ways to create profit, not to spend money,” Patronis said, adding: I’m grateful for what I’ve brought up here to Washington, what I’ve learned, and just hopefully, we can find enough like minds where we can move the needle. Rep. Ron Estes, R-Kan. One of the most prominent alumni of the State Financial Officers Foundation is Rep. Ron Estes.  Estes serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, where all bills related to taxation originate. He points to his time as Kansas state treasurer, working with limited resources, as a valuable experience. “I think a lot of what you look at, just from a standpoint of what’s the role of government, you look at small, limited government and being able to provide people the opportunity to do what they want to without government dictating what to do,” Estes told The Daily Signal of his experience as state treasurer.  Rep. Ron Estes, R-Fla. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images) He added, “There are some functions and features that a government should do, but let’s make sure that they’re efficient and effective in terms of how we set up them up, how we make them work, how we make them apply to people.” The Role on the State Level The State Financial Officers Foundation is led by Marlo Oaks, the Utah state treasurer. Oaks told The Daily Signal that he continues to value the connections between the organization and its alumni on Capitol Hill. “It’s really nice to have folks that have been in this role who understand what we’re doing at the state now at the federal level,” said Oaks. But he added that, despite the important action in Washington, officials on the state level play a major role themselves in determining governance. “They’ve clearly played a very significant role during the Biden administration, pushing back against the whole-of-government approach. That was one of the greatest over-exercisings of power in the history of this country … to push an agenda on this country.” The post In Congress, Former State Treasurers Aim to Manage Budget Better appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. It was only a matter of time before someone in Congress decided that the cure for the internet’s ills was to make everyone show their papers. The “Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act of 2025,” or GUARD Act, has arrived to do just that. We obtained a copy of the bill for you here. Introduced by Senators Josh Hawley and Richard Blumenthal, the bill promises to “protect kids” from AI chatbots that allegedly whisper bad ideas into young ears. The idea: force every chatbot developer in the country to check users’ ages with verified identification. The senators call it “reasonable age verification.” That means scanning your driver’s license or passport before you can talk to a digital assistant. Keeping in mind that AI is being added to pretty much everything these days, the implications of this could be far-reaching. More: The Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda Senator Josh Hawley said “AI chatbots pose a serious threat to our kids,” while Blumenthal argued that tech firms can’t be relied on to regulate themselves. For lawmakers who’ve spent the last decade warning about data collection, the plan to create a universal ID gateway for speech is an impressive pivot. The GUARD Act answers that call by placing chatbot providers under a new regime of continuous verification. Companies would have to lock existing accounts until users submit proof of age. They could outsource ID checks to third-party firms, but the liability remains theirs. Compliance would be enforced by the US Attorney General through subpoenas, fines, and civil actions. For a bill that insists on minimal data collection, it manages to authorize a lot of new data collection. Civil liberties and tech policy groups read the text and saw something else entirely: a massive infrastructure linking real-world identities to online speech. NetChoice called the proposal “heavy-handed,” pointing to recent identity leaks as proof that these systems fail where it matters most, keeping personal data secure. K.J. Bagchi of the Chamber of Progress added, “We all want to keep kids safe, but the answer is balance, not bans.” That “balance” may be hard to find once anonymity becomes a luxury. Under the GUARD Act, self-declared birthdays no longer count. If implemented broadly, it would set a precedent that any “interactive AI system” must verify identity through government-approved documentation. That covers a lot of ground: AI chatbots, social media, automated customer service, and even virtual tutors. For ordinary users, the result would be a world where every online interaction leaves a verified fingerprint. Once IDs are tied to speech, privacy becomes theoretical. Every search, comment, or message could be matched to a name, creating an archive of personal expression indexed by government-approved databases. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Lawmakers Want Proof of ID Before You Talk to AI appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Democrats and Their Sick Twisted Sister Harpy Parade

Grant him this, dear readers. On Tuesday, CNN’s The Lead host Jake Tapper was all of us in having to deal with the middle-aged, theatre kid buffoonery of Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), who was brought on as a Democrat from the Oversight Committee to counter an earlier interview with Chairman James Comer (R-KY) about the Biden autopen report. Instead, she hijacked it to accuse Republicans of wanting tens of millions to starve in the government shutdown. The theatre kid antics are strong with this one on the right that even CNN's Jake Tapper isn't having it. The canned lines. The hand gestures. The facial expressions. It's perfect. pic.twitter.com/wFXOQFetU5 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 28, 2025   Tapper started by asking “what evidence” do Democrats have “that refutes this report” about then-President Biden having ceded power on presidential pardons to his staff, but Stansbury lashed out at Tapper for talking about it to begin with. “I am deeply disturbed that this is a lead story on national network television tonight, as we are four days away from 42 million Americans losing food assistance as literally the White House is building a $300 million ballroom, and they are choosing to cut off food assistance and SNAP to 42 million Americans. They are going to let seniors, children, veterans, and millions of Americans starve, and this is what we’re covering,” she declared. After a few more uses of the word “literally,” calling Tapper’s story selection “disturb[ing],” and a declaration that President Trump is in cognitive decline, Tapper was incredulous at her sudden hostility (click “expand”): TAPPER: So, I actually do have questions for you about the cuts to the SNAP program and the fact that 42 million Americans will not have food stamp coverage as of Saturday, and we covered it yesterday and I covered it earlier today, and we’re going to cover it tomorrow as well, but this is a report from the House Oversight Committee, the majority — and I talked to the chairman of the committee who suggested that more legislation would be needed to outline exactly who a president should be able to grant a pardon to. Is that something that you think both parties could agree upon? STANSBURY: Well, I think first of all, the House needs to come back in session. Mike Johnson has now canceled the House of Representatives for 39 straight days. We are in day 28 of a House shutdown. They are literally not here. The President is overseas, as I just said, and they’re about to cut off food assistance to millions of Americans. And so I think it’s bizarre that Chairman Comer is going on T.V. talking about an investigation into a former president who’s not even a sitting president over a non-issue while literally Americans are about to starve. TAPPER: So, the reason that SNAP is running out of funding, I understand there’s a disagreement about the contingency plan, and whether that — STANSBURY: It’s not a disagreement. Literally, Congress approved money for this scenario. The White House is choosing to let Americans go without — TAPPER: Well, the Agriculture Department argues that the contingency funds $6 billion is there for natural disaster. I know that that’s disputed. Tapper cut to the chase and, to his credit, shifted to playing hardball and giving Stansbury some cold, hard facts: But if you are so concerned about SNAP funds running out, why not ask Democrats in the Senate to vote to open up the government and then the SNAP funding would go? I mean, that’s — I understand the dispute about the contingency fund, and that’s a real dispute and that’s $6 billion that could fund the SNAP program for two to three more weeks. But if we’re actually talking about long-term, why not have Senate Democrats to vote to open up the government? Stansbury was too busy with her talking points and hand gestures pretending to be an orchestra conductor to answer his question and instead argued she had “filed the SNAP-backed legislation that would force the administration to release those funds to not cut off EBT cards to millions of Americans, and that would reimburse states and tribes,” but Republicans won’t let her. Tapper tried again by asking if she believes her state’s senators “should...vote to open the government so that these SNAP funds are not at risk,” but Stansbury falsely claimed the Trump White House “is choosing to starve American children.” The CNN host’s facial expressions grew exasperated: The Jake Tapper - Melanie Stansbury interview is even funnier when you put in GIF form. Tapper was NOT having it with this lady pic.twitter.com/l9cBYNtPk7 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 29, 2025   Tapper cut deep with another reality check that the shutdown has been “a choice by Senate Democrats to not vote to open the government...because they want Medicaid funds restored” and “Obamacare premiums to be extended past the end of the year.” With her arms still flailing, Stansbury started calling Tapper “sir” and claiming there’s “money for contingency plans.” Tapper anticipated this by pointing out said money Democrats are arguing over would only last “two to three weeks[.]” Stansbury closed by arguing that “doesn’t matter” and going personal by arguing the food stamp debate isn’t “a big deal to you” (click “expand”): STANSBURY: Yeah. Well, it may not be a big deal to you, but — TAPPER: It is a big deal to me. STANSBURY: — let me tell you that for the grandparents — TAPPER: It is a big deal to me. STANSBURY: — for grandparents that literally are feeding their children. TAPPER: My point is that it’s a short-term solution. STANSBURY: And not have money in those accounts — TAPPER: It’s a short-term — STANSBURY: — it doesn’t matter. At the end of the day, people need to be able to feed their families, and Saturday is when those funds run out. TAPPER: If you feel so strongly — STANSBURY: And we are fighting — TAPPER: — Congresswoman, why not ask —  STANSBURY: — to get that funding. TAPPER: — funding the Senate Democrats from New Mexico to vote to open the government so that the SNAP funds — STANSBURY: Sir, I am here in the House of Representatives. It is shut down. I am fighting to get the government reopened. I am fighting to get funding, put back into SNAP that is already existent and I am fighting for the American people. I am here. But show me a single Republican that is here. Not a single one is here to make sure that Americans are fed on Saturday. That is why I am here. To see the relevant CNN transcript from October 28, click here.

The Republican-led House Oversight Committee issued a report on its investigation of how Biden’s White House aides hid his mental decline. ABC, CBS, and NBC aired nothing. PBS offered a dismissive brief. How about NPR’s All Things Considered? You won’t believe what they considered. Chairman James Comer summarized: “The Biden Autopen Presidency will go down as one of the biggest political scandals in U.S. history. As Americans saw President Biden’s decline with their own eyes, Biden’s inner circle sought to deceive the public, cover-up his decline, and took unauthorized executive actions with the autopen that are now invalid." There was an NPR segment lasting 4.5 minutes. But it never mentioned any of the Republican findings. They only interviewed an expert to explain the Republicans couldn’t possibly reverse any pardons Biden signed with an autopen! They were only concerned that Biden’s pardons remain valid, and who cares about Biden’s incapacity to be president?   Anchor Ailsa Chang barely mentioned Congressman Comer, which is very much an NPR pattern. Not only has NPR failed to interview Comer, a look at the search engine on NPR.org finds more results for English actress Jodie Comer. I found two James Comer results. You can find a story from December 15, 2023 that sounded like DNC opposition research. On Morning Edition, they interviewed AP reporter Brian Slodysko, who claimed Comer had a shell company, just like Hunter Biden. Comer called that story financially illiterate. NPR host Leila Fadel cued up the AP man: “The big takeaway in your story is that the accusations that are being leveled against President Biden's son are very similar to what you've reported on Comer. If you could, talk about that.” The only other search result is a James Comer interview in 2017 about the firing of James Comey – that can get confusing. In the latest report, Comer was mentioned in passing as anchor Ailsa Chang interviewed Minnesota law professor Mark Osler, who penned an op-ed last year promoting Gov. Tim Walz to be Kamala Harris’s running mate. Don't miss the part where Chang feels she must underline this is a "Republican-led committee," so NPR fans can roll their eyes: NPR's All Things Considered October 28, 2025 AILSA CHANG: So this House Oversight Committee accuses the Biden White House of covering up Biden's cognitive decline. Let me just ask you, what does this report ultimately ask for? MARK OSLER: Well, it's asking for a further investigation by the Department of Justice. I think they were frustrated because some of the witnesses pled the Fifth. And there's a political point being made as well. CHANG: OK. And just to remind everyone, this is a Republican-led committee. What do you make of the argument that they lay out in this report about Biden's cognitive decline and the permanence of these preemptive pardons? OSLER: Yeah. I'm not an expert on cognition, but I am an expert on clemency, and I can tell you that the Constitution doesn't make any requirement whatsoever as to how a pardon or a commutation is going to be put into writing or issued at all. And we've seen a variety of methods used over the years. You know, in 2005, the Office of Legal Counsel provided the president with advice that the president could use an autopen to sign bills - obviously one of the most important things the president is going to sign. And since then, presidents have used autopens for a wide variety of things... CHANG: Right. OSLER: ...Especially when there's a lot to be signed at once. CHANG: Well, what can the Department of Justice actually do in this situation? Like, can you think of anytime a pardon from a president has been reversed or declared null and void, as this House committee and President Trump would like to see happen here? OSLER: No, that hasn't happened. Once a president issues a pardon, it's been viewed as final. And so if something was to get overturned here, this would really be breaking new ground. CHANG: So are you telling me that a president's pardon power is absolute? OSLER: It's surprising, but that's what it says in the Constitution. It's almost absolute. It can't cover people who are under impeachment, and it's generally accepted that it can't pardon future crimes, those that haven't been committed yet. But yes. It's really rare in having so few checks and balances. CHANG: Well, then, okay. Say you're a person who did receive a pardon from President Biden. What would you advise that person to do to protect themselves legally now from having that pardon reversed or somehow invalidated during the Trump administration? OSLER: Yeah. There's really not that much that they can do. Again, I think most people who have studied this would be shocked if a pardon was overturned. One of the things that I really fear that could happen with this investigation and some of the conclusions that they seem to want to reach is you have 37 people who received a commutation of their death sentence by President Biden. And I would really think it would cause a constitutional crisis if President Trump moved to execute those people despite that commutation of the death sentence. But going forward, I hope that pardons aren't undermined. They're under enough stress as they are. CHANG: Mark Osler, from the University of St. Thomas, thank you very much for being with us today.

Vice President JD Vance had a very warm response to the idea of running for president with his "best friend" Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State.Vance made the comments while speaking on the “Pod Force One” podcast from the New York Post. He said President Donald Trump suggested the idea of a Vance-Rubio ticket during a lunch a few months prior.'A lot of the good work that we've been able to do as an administration is because we're all able to work together.'"I mentioned it to the secretary in jest, but it feels so premature because we're still so early," Vance said.He went on to say that he was focused on the main problem plaguing Americans."We've got to make life more affordable for American citizens," he added. "Again, we've chipped away at that problem, but there's a lot more work to do there. So, my attitude is, the American people elected me to be vice president. I'm gonna work as hard as I can to make the president successful over the next three years and three months."Vance is the clear front-runner for the next Republican presidential candidate in recent polling. "If we get to a point where something else is in the offer, let's handle it then," Vance continued. "But let's at least get through the next couple of years and do good work for the American people before we talk about politics."RELATED: White House hammers Jen Psaki over comments about JD Vance's wife: 'Circle back on that, moron' When asked if playing second fiddle to the vice president would cause "tension" between the two, Vance called Rubio his "best friend in the administration" and said there would be no problem at all. "He and I work a lot together," Vance said. "A lot of the good work that we've been able to do as an administration is because we're all able to work together."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Hakeem Jeffries Runs to MSNBC to Blame Trump for the Bad Effects of the Democrats' Schumer Shutdown

Dem Wants MAGA Who Are OK With Trump's Drug Boat Strikes to Imagine Who Gets Killed If AOC Is President

Mehdi Hasan Marks Anniversary of Beeper Joke, Wonders If He, the Abused, Is Also Banned From CNN