There's no doubt that there are contrasts between the generations, as baby boomers, Gen X, millennials and Gen Z see and experience the world quite differently. While generation gaps have always existed, the tech age has widened those gaps in big ways, which sometimes creates challenges but often results in hilarity.For instance, watching a Gen Zer try to figure out how to use a rotary phone is pure entertainment. The way emojis are used and interpreted varies vastly by age, making for some chuckle-worthy communication mishaps. Slang terms can be hard to keep up with the older you get, but they can also be manipulated by savvy elders to great comedic effect. Riz W Sign GIF Giphy And now, comedian Jake Lambert is comparing how the different generations arrive at someone's house in a viral video that's been viewed more than 12 million times."You've basically got boomers who will turn up completely unannounced any time from about 7:00 in the morning and they will knock on your door just slightly louder than the police using a battering ram carrying out a house raid," Lambert begins."And then you've got Gen X. They would have made the plans well in advance, and they would've also checked in a couple of days before just to make sure the plans are definitely still happening," he goes on. "You see, Gen X is the forgotten generation and they're so scarred by this title they would've assumed that you'd forgotten not only about the plans but about their very existence." See on Instagram "Millennials will have hoped that the plans would've been canceled. There's no reason that a millennial will ever actually want to come to your house," he continues. "They will arrive late, but they will text you to let you know they're on their way, just as they're about to get into the shower. And a millennial will never knock on your door. You'll just get a text either saying 'here' or 'outside,' and that's your cue to go and let them in.""Similarly, Gen Z will never actually knock," he concludes. "But the chances are they won't have to, as they would have been documenting the entire journey from their house to yours, maybe even on Facetime using this angle [camera facing directly up at the chin] as they go along for some reason. Either that or they'll just send a picture of your front door or a selfie of them outside it. And again, just like the millennial, that's your cue to go and rescue them from the outside world." Gen Z will send a selfie from outside your house as an indicator that they've arrived. Photo credit: CanvaPeople feel alternately seen, attacked and validated by Lambert's assessments, with the most common response being "accurate.""I‘m a millennial, my husband GenX. Scarily accurate! ?""Described this millennial to a T.""This is surprisingly accurate ? I laughed slightly louder than the police using a battering ram…""Sooo accurate…guilty of the lateness and ‘here’ text ?""I must admit I'm a millennial. But knocking on the door feels so aggressive, uknow? ??""Millennial texting to say almost there but just started getting dressed to go out. Why do we do this? It's not intentional, at least not for me." Giphy "Honestly your observations are just brilliant! GenX-er here!""The Gen Z angle omg. ??"Naturally there are some people who don't resonate with their generation's description, but there are exceptions to every rule and some people will never fit a stereotype. However, judging by the wave of affirmative responses, Lambert has nailed the generational generalities across the board—and done so in a way that allows us all to laugh at ourselves.You can follow Jake Lambert on Instagram.This article originally appeared last year.

Parent-teacher conferences are considered a crucial tool in a child's education and development. They help both parents and teachers get on the same page about a student's progress, strengths, and areas where improvement is needed. What's more, it helps parent maintain a participating role in this aspect of their child's life, making them hopefulll feel supported and cared for. That said, with all the mandatory activities that parents today have to manage on top of their work and other households responsibilities…not to mention all the various ways parents are constantly inundated with information from schools…it's understandable why some parents might question whether or not these one-on-ones are actually necessary. Or at the very least…if it could be sent in an email. For mom Tatiana (@mamasreadingjournal), the dread of having to go to her kid’s parent-teacher conference was so strong that she posted a TikTok video asking if other moms and dads felt the same way. “Do you go to your kid's parent-teacher conferences every year? Am I a bad mom for not wanting to go? Like I'm gonna go, but I really don't wanna go, you know?” she asked in the clip, just before quipping, “sorry if his teacher finds this, it's not you, I swear, it's me, I'm lazy.” “This can't be an email?”Photo credit: CanvaConsidering Tatiana is already in communication with her kid’s teacher through an app, she also couldn't help but wonder why “this can't be an email?” A very, very relatable thought for anyone in the 21st century. Tatiana’s confession was met with…a lot of concern. Clearly, people do, in fact, feel pretty strongly about this topic. And a common point brought up was how a child might feel if their parent doesn’t show an interest in their education in this particular way. @thisthatlifeandmore Do we really have to go every year? Like let the teachers go home #parentteacherconferences #everyyyear #teachers ♬ original sound - Tatiana? | This & That “Your child is worth the effort, showing up to things like this is showing up for them,” one person wrote.Another asked, “I guess the question is why aren’t you interested in learning from your child’s teacher about how their learning journey is going, if they’re a good friend to their classmates, etc? I see how it can be an inconvenience but being a parent means being involved in their life at school as well.”A few teachers also weighed in, who admitted that even they didn’t exactly love parent-teacher conferences. Still, one advised, “always go. As a teacher it builds the connection we have with the parent, helps communication to overall support the child.”Another teacher was a little more blunt, saying, “girl. we don't want to go! but you create so much work for us if you don't go. we gotta document so many attempts of trying to get you in. also, your kid wants you to go. I see hs kids sad that their parents don't care to go. It's important I swear.”There was even a heated sidebar debate as to which parent, if only one, should be attending said parent-teacher conference—the stay-at-home-parent (SAHP), or the parent who works. Some argued that the SAHP should be the one to go as part of their at-home responsibilities. Others argued that SAHPs are the ones in regular correspondence with teachers, and therefore it’s the other parent that needs to get caught up.But all moral judgments aside, this mom wasn’t necessarily saying she planned on skipping out. She was merely sharing a feeling that quite honestly a lot of folks can probably relate to. Even the most involved parent on the planet could get overwhelmed with the ever increasing amount of random school events that seem more or less mandatory. That goes double for parents who already have demanding schedules or social anxiety, which has to describe at least 99.9% of parents, right? It more so sounds like she was looking for commiseration than anything else.To that point, Tatiana did make a follow-up video sharing that she “did not know” that not attending a parent-teacher conference results in more work for the teacher. She assumed it meant they’d “get to go home earlier if I didn't go.” Honestly, fair assumption.She also clarified that she did in fact go to the conference, and had always planned to go. However, she tells Upworthy that “outta my 15 minute slot we talked about my kid’s actual performance for maybe two minutes. Even my husband was shocked how much we chitchatted vs discussing actual grades and progress.” @thisthatlifeandmore Replying to @The Next Ten Minutes ♬ original sound - Tatiana? | This & That But regardless, while she still feels that there’s “too much weight” put on this particular event, she will “go every year with bells on.”“A mom who’s willing to accept feedback and adjust their attitude. We love to see it,” one astute viewer said.This goes to show a few things. One, it’s a reminder of how so many aspects of education could stand for a revamp to fit with modern times. Two, productive conversations really can lead to better understanding. And three, parenting comes with going to a lot of things that you’d really rather not go to. Be it a parent-teacher conference or a Peppa Pig pop-up.Also bonus number four—it can almost always be an email instead.This article originally appeared last year.

I hadn’t seen it before a couple of weeks ago, when I parked my SUV next to a Subaru bearing a bumper sticker that read “Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History” at the neighborhood grocery store. The sticker was next to a “Coexist” bumper sticker, and that was next to one of those equal-sign stickers they give to supporters of the LGBTQ/pedo groomer Human Rights Campaign. In other words, the owner of that Subaru was a typical — and typically boring — AWFL, the species of individual known as an Affluent White Female Leftist. I’ve changed it, because I’m refusing to use the word “liberal” as a perjorative when we’re actually talking about leftists and not liberals. Tulsi Gabbard is a liberal, for crying out loud, and it’s simply not allowable to trash that woman given all the manifest good she’s doing. (RELATED: The Libs Have Lost It) Anyway, I went into the grocery store expecting that I’d be able to identify the perpetrator of that Marxist back-windshield menagerie, but I was disappointed. Nobody stood out as an obvious candidate — and no Birkenstocks or crazy eyes were detected. And the Subaru was still there when I loaded my ride and departed. But that “Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History” thing has stuck with me. While it’s been attributed to people like Mae West and Eleanor Roosevelt, it turns out this is a quote from a rather obscure historian named Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, who, in a 1976 scholarly article about little-studied Puritan funeral services, included the phrase “well-behaved women seldom make history.” We’re told that Ulrich meant the quote to indicate that well-behaved women were not studied by historians, not to encourage contemporary women to rebel or be less “well-behaved.” The feminist movement nonetheless latched on to it and turned it viral. I apparently was one of the last people to notice it, as it’s on greeting cards, T-shirts, mugs, plaques, bumper stickers, and lots of other things. The pursuit of political power, particularly with the aim of making history, is a story lived out by all of the most profligate monsters humanity has ever seen. “It was a weird escape into popular culture,” Ulrich said in a 2007 interview. “I got constant e-mails about it, and I thought it was humorous. Then I started looking at where it was coming from. Once I turned up as a character in a novel — and a tennis star from India wore the T-shirt at Wimbledon. It seemed like a teaching moment — and so I wrote a book using the title.” Give Ulrich credit — you might as well monetize that 15 minutes of fame when it comes. Except “Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History,” as it’s been bastardized by feminists, is abjectly woeful, horrific advice that is creating misery for millions. Everywhere you go, it seems, you can see evidence of how disastrous the effect is that poorly-behaved women have on our society. (RELATED: The Masculinization of the Modern Woman) Not that this is a surprise. Poorly-behaved men, it’s been known for a long time, aren’t all that great an asset, either. And there isn’t much of a lobby for poorly-behaved men — unless we’re talking about the Democrat Party and its insatiable fetishization for street criminals and illegal aliens. Just in this past week, for example, more than two million Democrats and others have signed a Change.org petition seeking the exoneration of one Harjinder Singh, the illegal alien truck driver who killed three people making an insanely irresponsible illegal U-turn on a Florida interstate highway. (RELATED: How Did a Migrant Who Can’t Speak English Get a License to Drive a Big Rig?) Some of the same people signing that petition surely decry the toxic masculinity of poorly-behaved men with much less melanin and greatly improved citizenship status than the celebrated Mr. Singh. Which is worthy of conversation in itself, but I’d like to stay on track here. (RELATED: Newsom’s War on Masculinity Comes Full Circle) So we understand each other, “making history” is an absolutely horrible, illegitimate life aim. “Making history” amounts to “becoming famous,” because nobody makes history without fame. And seeking fame will, the vast majority of the time, lead people to do terrible things. The pursuit of political power, particularly with the aim of making history, is a story lived out by all of the most profligate monsters humanity has ever seen. Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Idi Amin, Hugo Chávez — the list of butchers, tyrants, and otherwise poorly-behaved history-makers goes on for a depressingly long time. And the pursuit of fame for fame’s sake leads us in a generally more banal, but certainly no more inspired direction. This is where the Kathy Griffins and Dylan Mulvaneys of the world lead us. But in the feminist telling, the exhortation to behave poorly in order that history might be made is about shattering “glass ceilings” and becoming the first woman to do X or Y. Especially with the use of DEI as a license and tool for such history-making, we’ve had a great deal of this over the past few years. How’s that working out? Well… Perhaps the best example I can give comes courtesy of someone named Julie Masino, the girlboss in charge of Cracker Barrel who has been making quite a bit of history over the past few days. (RELATED: Cracker Barrel’s New Logo Sparks Outrage — But Is It Really About ‘Woke’ Politics?) Most notably for the restaurant chain’s rebrand, which took an old-timey logo evocative of what Cracker Barrel was — namely, rib-sticking country food and old-timey tchotchke merchandise in the gift shop — and made it utterly antiseptic and boring. As a friend noted, “they literally got rid of both the cracker and the barrel. And what they’re left with is nothing.” He isn’t wrong. Go Woke, Go Broke pic.twitter.com/tTsbbwxyXf — ꧁??????꧂ (@Sky_La2) August 25, 2025 Cracker Barrel also “slimmed down” the menu. But this has to be seen in context, because for a decade, Cracker Barrel has been actively pushing the LGBTQ agenda on its employees and, especially, its customer base. All of this hit the fan late last week when the company’s stock cratered, though institutional capital managed to backstop the stock as it commonly seems to do. As Jeff Crouere wrote at RVIVR… Sadly, the corporate leadership is antagonistic toward such “little people.” For example, the rebranding was unveiled in New York City, even though there are no Cracker Barrel restaurants in the Big Apple. This sideshow prompted Sean Davis of The Federalist to tweet, “It tells you EVERYTHING about who that company’s executives want to impress.” In his column at The Federalist, Davis wrote, “Cracker Barrel is done. Woke executives killed it, wrapped the corpse in a rainbow flag, and then made it do a little puppet show in New York City for the entertainment of … woke little friends. Cracker Barrel’s new logo — and its miserable attempt to reinvent itself — is obviously a complete disaster, whether in terms of customer backlash or the company’s stock price.” Despite the backlash, Masino claims the response to the radical changes and $700 million rebranding campaign has been “overwhelmingly positive.” While the transformation may be anathema to the average customer, it will surely be well received by the largest investors. According to the latest financial reports, two of the three largest shareholders of Cracker Barrel stock are Blackrock, Inc. and the Vanguard Group, Inc., the champions of woke capitalism, who obviously control this iconic restaurant chain lock, stock and barrel. It’s history-making, all right, though one might question whether that’s much of a good thing. And it’s also part of a pattern wherein poorly-behaved girlbosses are achieving all kinds of fame. Masino. Amanda Heinerscheid, the destroyer of the Bud Light brand. Claudine Gay, the much-ballyhooed “first female president” at Harvard, behaved poorly, as in plagiarizing most of her scholarly articles, in order to get that job. Kamala Harris. Hillary Clinton. I’m not saying women shouldn’t challenge the status quo. Nor am I saying there shouldn’t be prominent women. This isn’t about that. But “making history,” at least for its own sake, is a terrible goal. What’s a better goal is to do something very, very well — so much so that people might notice. Steve Jobs, for example, probably made more history than anyone else in the modern world, and he didn’t force anybody to do anything they didn’t want to do. Which is to say that to be exceptionally well-behaved is the right goal. I haven’t seen much of that from the girlboss feminists, though. All I’ve seen is that the cracker and the barrel have to go, regardless of what it does to the consumers and the stock price. And the patience for all of this is wearing very, very thin. READ MORE from Scott McKay: ‘Fascist’ Is the Dumbest Political Insult in the World Today Variety Is Now Actively Rooting for the End of Hollywood Gavin Newsom’s California Is a Crashing Caliphate of Chaos

How may an economic conservative assess President Donald J. Trump’s first 200 days? President Trump has: pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord; challenged the greenhouse gas “Endangerment Finding” on carbon dioxide; required that every new regulation must have benefits that exceed costs; enforced work requirements for welfare; expanded production of American oil, gas, and coal production; increased mining on federal lands; supported educational school choice; withdrawn from the World Health Organization; and taken legal control of the bureaucracy, among other positive reforms. It has been a remarkable presidency. But there are three serious challenges. He has been so successful that one of the top Republican strategists fears that success is also the Republican Party’s major problem, asking why anyone would vote for Republicans in the 2026 midterm election with nothing else to fix? It has been a remarkable presidency. But there are three serious challenges. We have commented on debt and dollar instability, and defense readiness and intelligence. The final threat is tariffs, considered to be set at trade’s highest rates since the 1930s Smoot-Hawley tariff, with a Great Depression as a result only two years later. (RELATED: Why ‘Liberation Day’ Frightened Democrats) Any market supporter must begin by divulging that he dislikes tariffs. As the Mises Institute notes, tariffs are essentially taxes on imported goods, and these taxes are ultimately borne by domestic consumers and businesses. This is based on the theory of comparative advantage, which holds that foreign trade exists because no country is efficient at doing everything. Countries should produce goods and services that have lower production costs and greater export appeal, and import high-cost domestic items. Domestic consumers end up with quality and lower costs. Tariffs raise costs for domestic producers who rely on imported raw materials or components, potentially making them less competitive, hindering economic growth. Rather than creating jobs, tariffs can displace jobs in industries that rely on imports or those affected by retaliatory tariffs. The Institute finds that the result of tariffs on foreign imports is higher prices for goods and services, reduced consumer purchasing power, and lower standards of living. That is the proper theory. But as libertarian Cato Institute leader David Boaz conceded, Every tariff, subsidy, regulation, mandate, or other government program creates winners and losers. In most cases, a small number of winners, with the losses spread almost invisibly across the whole society. Economists call it concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. The tariff benefits domestic steel producers and unions, and the costs are spread out over everyone who buys products made with steel or aluminum. Which group is aware and engaged in the debate over the issue? Obviously, the steel companies. Besides this standard political pressure for tariffs, President Trump faces the fact that he built a substantial and critical part of his winning political coalition with a constituency specifically demanding tariffs that would increase domestic industrial employment, leading him to support tariffs. He seems to believe in them, too. But Trump is essentially a pragmatist. One has to look closely to see what is really happening in today’s tariff world. When the President finally announced his formal tariff program this August, The Washington Post noted, he “celebrated the start of his long-awaited tariffs” not by emphasizing the tariffs themselves and their long-term effect on employment. Instead, he emphasized that they would produce funding for the government, “flowing into the USA at levels not thought even possible!” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick added that the government could collect $50 billion a month in revenue, which would be a boon to the “dismal financial health” of the economy. (RELATED: Tariffs As the New Tax Base: A Laughable Idea) And, somehow, U.S. stocks pretty much remained positive as investors appeared unbothered by the new tariffs. What kept the markets up? Let us begin with America’s top two trading partners. Mexico’s general tariff rate was increased from 0.25 to 25 percent (so far), and Canada’s from 0.0 to 35 percent. These are indeed very substantial increases, especially for Canada, where Trump is especially angered for what he considers his northern neighbor allowing Russia to avoid sanctions. But how real are these figures? (RELATED: Trump Broke the Economic Consensus on Trade — and Won) The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement is still in effect, and trade covered by it is not covered by the Trump sanctions. And both Mexico and Canada have recently dramatically increased the number of items placed under that exemption. The third largest U.S. trader is China, whose traffic level is still up for grabs but is thought to be much less vulnerable to tariff increases than public rhetoric suggests. Trump wants an incentive for Xi Jinping to place himself closer to the U.S. than to Russia in trade, to balance Vladimir Putin. The next most important trading partners are Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Ireland, Taiwan, South Korea, and Vietnam, most with 10-15 percent tariffs. But the reaction of the European Union and Great Britain has been surprisingly modest, perhaps due to reasonable exclusions and small effects. The best estimates for the total costs of the major tariffs are that “the higher tariffs will push U.S. real GDP growth down by 0.8 percent and boost prices by 2 percent.” Still, this level’s effects “would be unfortunate but probably not severe enough to roil U.S. financial markets.” (RELATED: Trump’s New US–UK Trade Deal Puts America First) But the absolute bottom line is that none of the agreements for any of the countries have been made public in their details, many or most are simply promises for the future, and there is no enforcement mechanism — or probably any way to enforce provisions if anyone wanted to do so. The best bet is for more show than blow. But so much ambiguity easily gets out of control. (RELATED: Trump’s Underwhelming UK Trade Deal) So, what can a libertarian oriented conservative conclude? Nationalist intellectual Oren Cass believes the U.S. is in “the middle of a transformation” on trade and economic policy generally, to make it less free market and more managed. More than the Great Recession? He will be disappointed. We do not even know what the major nations are doing quietly with their own tariff rates. Could the net worldwide tariff rate even go down? This is all led by a president who tries to keep his political promises but who is too sharp to reject outright the fundamental principle of comparative advantage and other basic market principles. Trump is clearly better with America’s friends as the British and EU settlements demonstrate (although the deal is not yet final), and he is, most of all, flexible. “We will work it all out” is his standard response to difficulties. Trump also understands that traditional market conservatives are a part of his political coalition. While the more nationalist Secretary Lutnick clearly dominated in the early days, it is understood in Washington that the more conservative Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stepped in to somewhat rationalize the process, whatever it is. And Trump is pragmatic enough to change course, as the whole process demonstrates. The result clearly is not free markets or what economic theory demands. But it could be much worse under an ideological leftist or even a Great Recession centrist. My experience is that Trump often listens. Those who understand tariffs must make the case to him and his close associates. READ MORE from Donald Devine: The Washington Post Is Wrong: History Proves the Federal Reserve Econometric Models Cannot Make a Fiat Money System Work Pitfalls and Obstacles Plague Defense Modernization A ‘War’ on the Civil Service or Controlling a Powerful Union Political Machine? Donald Devine is a senior scholar at the Fund for American Studies in Washington, D.C. He served as President Ronald Reagan’s civil service director during his first term in office. A former professor, he is the author of 11 books, including his most recent, The Enduring Tension: Capitalism and the Moral Order, and Ronald Reagan’s Enduring Principles, and is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator.

There’s little to be gained from seeking to appease or appeal to America’s Left. The Cracker Barrel logo fiasco is the latest affirmation of this. However, this corporate misstep toward the Left goes beyond a faux pas to the false premise that mainstream America can, or should seek to, placate the Left. (RELATED: Cracker Barrel’s New Logo Sparks Outrage — But Is It Really About ‘Woke’ Politics?) Seeking to appease America’s Left is the equivalent of a dog chasing its tail: It can’t be caught, and what would you do with it if you did? “Solving” one issue to the American Left’s satisfaction will only send them in search of another. America’s Left does not want to be placated. Fists in the air and slogans on the lips. Instead of unity, they want division. The Left’s history is one of histrionics. Protests, marches, civil disobedience, riots: More than their images, these are who they are. It is because it’s what they must be. (RELATED: The Left Retaliates Against a Liberal’s Call for Unity) In America, the Left is the smallest ideological minority. By far. According to 2024 exit polling, only 23 percent of voters self-identified as liberal; contrastingly, 35 percent identified as conservative, and 42 percent as moderate. Only in their enclaves, the coasts and big cities, does the Left rule. In the broader, center-right country that America is, the Left’s only hope for success comes from fracturing the rest of society and taking advantage of any resulting divisions to incrementally advance. (RELATED: Democrats’ Real Problem with Populism) The Left is forever seeking issues by which to do this. And they will be forever doing so — so long as they remain such a distant minority. Therefore, “solving” one issue to the American Left’s satisfaction will only send them in search of another. If you don’t believe it, simply look at the progression of their causes. Abortion has been an issue for the Left forever. And, it has stayed a goal, because the goalpost for abortion has gotten steadily more extreme. Though the Left continues to talk about the overturning of Roe v. Wade, note they are not clamoring for its return — at least not as it existed prior to overturning. Instead, they want much more now. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade allowed for restrictions on abortion to varying degrees in varying states. Now with Roe v. Wade removed as an obstacle, the Left’s battle cry is for “reproductive freedom.” Even that call is insufficient for many and is expanded to “reproductive freedom for all.” The standard has shifted expansively: no restrictions under any circumstances, anywhere. The same applies to race relations. The Left’s first call was against segregation and for equal access. The call then shifted to affirmative action, a proactive move expanding the Left’s old demand. Then the Left’s call shifted to DEI, an even more proactive demand. Now, the demand on some college campuses is for minority-only housing — effectively taking the standard back to the segregation of three-quarters of a century ago. The same applies to the Left and the environment. For those old enough to remember the 1970s, the cry then was against global cooling. The Left’s next cry was against global warming. Now the Left’s cry is against climate change. In all these and more, the Left’s standard is ever evolving, but the Left themselves are never appeased. And the more extreme the members of the Left, the less appeasable they are. With appeasing the Left an impossibility, there’s nothing to be gained in trying to appeal to the Left. Even if the Left’s stated standard is attained, the standard will change. The Left will soon be unhappy again: It’s impossible to hold a snowflake. However, it’s not only metaphysically impossible to placate the Left; it’s also mathematically disadvantageous. As noted, when it comes to America’s Left, there’s little there. The more extreme the Left, the less “there” there is. At most, they are 23 percent of the population. Trying to appeal to them means risking the other 77 percent of society. Wagering 77 percent on a 23 percent return is a sucker’s bet. Few are the enterprises that can make a go of appealing to the Left. They are niche markets. Look at the success of the broadcaster soon to be the network-formerly-known-as-MSNBC. There’s a reason MSNBC was spun off and rebranded, and “success” isn’t that reason. (RELATED: Five Quick Things: Who Knew That This Was Heat Miser Week?) Of all the genuflections corporate America has made to the Left, how many have really paid off in more customers? Did those delighted by Bud Light’s decision to put Dylan Mulvaney on a can flock to buy the beer? Did those offended by the nicknames “Indians” and “Redskins” suddenly become season ticketholders? No, no, and no. All those who made these changes staked what they had for what they were never going to get. As Cracker Barrel’s logo fiasco and others’ prior efforts prove, “Go woke, go broke” is more than a catchphrase. It’s hard to go Left and stay mainstream. It is because the Left only moves further leftward, and the return on catching them isn’t worth the risk.  # # # READ MORE from J.T. Young: America’s Elite: A Nobility in Exile Mamdani’s Makeover Trump’s Supporters Aren’t Going Anywhere J.T. Young is the author of the recent book, Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left, from RealClear Publishing, and has over three decades’ experience working in Congress, the Department of Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget, and representing a Fortune 20 company.

by Mac Slavo, SHTF Plan: Israel has begun its offensive, designed to take over Gaza City. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told the military to decrease the time to defeat Hamas after his plans for military control were approved. Netanyahu later said that he had ordered the military to “shorten the timelines for seizing the […]

by Randy Clark, Breitbart: Violent attacks on federal law enforcement agents involved in deportation operations are continuing to escalate in Governor Gavin Newsom’s sanctuary state of California. On Wednesday, a group of 15-20 violent rioters in San Francisco, California, assaulted, grabbed, punched, and pepper-sprayed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in broad daylight. The […]

President Donald Trump righted a wrong Monday by honoring the Gold Star families of the 13 soldiers killed during the Abbey Gate bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan, in  August 2021. In an Oval Office event, Trump signed a proclamation to mark the fourth anniversary of the bombing, which happened Aug. 26,...