History is rife with the names of great men who, through no fault of their own, were imprisoned at one point or another. And during their incarceration, instead of wasting their time, they produced meaningful works of literature. Sir Walter Raleigh wrote “The History of the World” while imprisoned in the Tower of London. Sir Thomas More wrote “A Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation” during his stint in the same prison. John Bunyan wrote “The Pilgrim’s Progress” from jail. The Apostle Paul wrote several epistles while under house arrest. If there’s a lesson we can draw from all of these examples, it would seem to be that, even when confronted with a major disruption to their day-to-day life, productive and creative people still find a way to make use of their time. They don’t wallow in self-pity and narcissism. Instead, they adapt to their new situation. They use their intellect in creative ways. And they keep going. Take a group of motivated and smart individuals, hand them a setback, and they’ll overcome it — and even use it to their advantage. Of course, that raises the obvious question: What happens in the opposite scenario? What happens when you take an extremely lazy and unintelligent group of people and hand them a minor setback to their day-to-day lives? How do monumentally untalented and self-absorbed individuals react when their mindless routine is disrupted, even for a moment? If they don’t produce “The Pilgrim’s Progress,” what do they produce, exactly? Unfortunately, for any sociology professors out there who were hoping to run this experiment, we now have the definitive answer to that question. That’s because, as you probably haven’t noticed in any way, hundreds of thousands of federal government workers have been furloughed since October 1, as part of the ongoing government shutdown. And during this furlough, thousands of federal government workers have been keeping themselves busy — not by producing any great work of literature, but by producing an overwhelming number of vapid TikToks that have been polluting the internet for more than a week at this point. They’re eating popsicles. They’re miming rap lyrics. They’re taking videos of themselves looking at mirrors. And they want the world to know it, for some reason: If you’re tempted to excuse any of this inane behavior — maybe you’re inclined to say these people can do whatever they want on their own time — you should know that some federal government workers are indeed being told they need to commute to the office during the shutdown. And rest assured: Those workers are uploading TikToks too: What makes the videos of these “public servants” even more enraging than they might seem — as if that’s possible — is that the government shutdown isn’t really about any of these people. Yes, they’re glorified welfare recipients with fake jobs, and we shouldn’t have to pay their salaries. But the government shutdown is actually about a separate set of taxpayer handouts. Specifically, Democrats want to renew federal subsidies for Obamacare plans. And they want to reverse Medicaid cuts that Donald Trump just signed into law — including cuts that would impose new work requirements, and kick so-called “asylum seekers” off the program. Last week, as you might remember, I indicated that I didn’t really want to talk about the government shutdown. And there was a reason for that. When you do this job long enough, you begin to realize that government shutdowns are not, in fact, a big deal. For one thing, as we just established, 80% of government workers are useless. No one cares if they’re working or not. Secondly, in pretty much every case, the government shutdown gets resolved, and nothing really changes. Usually, whatever the dispute is about, they kick the can down the road. But in this case, it’s worth taking a moment to talk about what’s happening — if only because of the sheer volume of lying that we’re all being subjected to.  Here’s just one example, from CBS’s “Face the Nation”: Johnson: They want to fund healthcare for illegal aliens. It is in their bill. Brennan: I have looked at that text. It doesn’t explicitly say what you are indicating Johnson: Yes, it does pic.twitter.com/fnrGvBdPPR — Acyn (@Acyn) October 5, 2025 Credit: @Acyn The anchorwoman tries to fact-check him, but she doesn’t actually make a point. He says that Democrats want to repeal the new Medicaid restrictions that Donald Trump signed into law earlier this year, which would have the effect of allowing more illegals to access the program. She just says he’s wrong and shakes her head a few times. Rolling Stone attempted a similar fact-check after Mike Johnson’s appearance. Here’s the key line from their article. It’s important to note that undocumented immigrants broadly do not qualify for Medicaid, Affordable Care Act subsidies, or other federally-funded health care coverage. The word “broadly” is obviously doing a lot of work there. Whenever you see a hedge word like that — where they can’t say something in a clear, definitive way — then they’re lying. In reality, illegal immigrants aren’t allowed to access Medicaid in the same way that you aren’t allowed to go through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop. It’s a restriction that, in practice, is basically meaningless. Illegal aliens, as a matter of objective, observable fact, are allowed to enroll in Medicaid. And I’m not just talking about emergency coverage. Go to the websites of states like New York, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, North Carolina, and Oregon, and you’ll often find explicit statements that Medicaid coverage is provided for illegals, including for primary care. It’s not exactly a well-kept secret. New York offers “Managed Medicaid Care plans” for illegals. Illegals in Massachusetts are entitled to “full-scope Massachusetts Medicaid coverage.” In Illinois, even the paper of record admits what’s going on here. They just do it in a somewhat roundabout way. Here’s a headline from the Chicago Tribune, for example. Credit: @chicagotribune/X.com Put two-and-two together, and it’s not hard to conclude that, indeed, so-called “immigrants without legal status” were indeed receiving Medicaid benefits. The Denver Post admits that the same thing is happening in Colorado. Here’s one of their recent headlines: Colorado and 19 other states sued the federal government Tuesday to prevent Medicaid data from being used for immigration enforcement. Well, that’s an interesting development. How could “Medicaid data” be used for “immigration enforcement?” If illegal aliens have nothing to do with Medicaid, because they can’t access it, then you’d think ICE would have no use for “Medicaid data.” But of course, illegal aliens are indeed receiving taxpayer-funded healthcare. And Democrats are doing everything they can — including filing lawsuits — to prevent this fraud from being exposed and stopped. On the Democrat side, they’ll often claim that only state funds are being used to fund these programs. They’ll say that, even though these are “Medicaid” programs, only state-level taxpayers are footing the bill. First of all, even if that were true, it would still be an outrage. No taxpayer should be forced to fund healthcare for people who have no right to be in this country. But on top of that, this claim is simply a lie. Federal funds are used in these programs all the time — often as part of a shell game using federal tax revenue, which is carefully engineered to obscure the truth. Missouri Congressman Eric Burlison recently posted a video of how this scam works in California, and it’s worth watching because he lays out the details pretty clearly for such a complicated topic. Watch: 5. California’s Medicaid shell game CA uses a loophole to inflate provider payments, draw down more federal funds, then diverts the money – including ~$4 billion for illegal aliens on Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/knJRpyIVqt — Rep. Eric Burlison (@RepEricBurlison) May 16, 2025 Credit: @RepEricBurlison/X.com Altogether, by conservative estimates, there are roughly 1.5 million illegal aliens who are currently receiving Medicaid benefits, along with nearly 5 million able-bodied individuals who receive Medicaid benefits but choose not to work. Even in relatively small states like Connecticut, the cost is astronomical. Here’s a recent assessment from CT Insider, for example: At least $80 million in state funds have been used to pay for health care for children and expectant and postpartum mothers without legal immigration status since this coverage became available through Connecticut’s Medicaid program two years ago. Meanwhile, in Texas, as you might expect, the numbers are even higher. As you can see, in just four months — from November of 2024 to February of 2025 — more than 100,000 patients in Texas hospitals admitted that they weren’t in the country legally. That includes 23,000 inpatient discharges and 85,000 emergency department visits. At the same time, more than 600,000 patients refused to provide their immigration status. And again, the vast majority of people who declined to answer were receiving emergency care — so we can assume, of course, that the vast majority of those 600,000 patients are also illegal aliens. According to official estimates from the state, in total, illegal aliens cost Texas hospitals more than $120 million per month. And again, the important thing to consider here isn’t simply the cost, which is obviously too high. It’s also important to recognize that, even if the illegal aliens were somehow paying for their own care — which they’re not — they’re still creating a massive drain on our healthcare system. They’re making it harder for American citizens to get the care they need. They’re filling up emergency rooms and doctors’ offices, at a time when doctors are in short supply. By itself, that’s more than enough reason to deny illegals any access to Medicaid, or to our healthcare system in general. When the system is collapsing, the absolute last thing we can do, or should do, is allow the entire world to access it, and ultimately destroy it. Even some Democratic institutions are finally coming around to this realization. The Washington Post editorial board, of all places, just published an editorial that supports Republicans’ position on the Obamacare-related aspects of the government shutdown. This is an amazing sentence to see in a @wapo editorial. I am truly impressed. pic.twitter.com/l9E82bMl0X — Conn Carroll (@conncarroll) October 6, 2025 Credit: @conncarroll/X.com Democrats have demanded that Republicans agree to extend the COVID-era insurance subsidies without proposing any way to pay for it. … This will cost $350 billion over the next decade. … The real problem is that the Affordable Care Act was never actually affordable. Well, it’s a belated reaction. It’s about 15 years too late, in fact. But it’s something. It’s an indication that everyone — even the deranged partisans who read the Washington Post — understands that Democrats have no credibility whatsoever when it comes to healthcare, which was their primary policy objective for the 8 years of Barack Obama’s presidency. Their signature issue has been a complete debacle. It’s this recent history that we should keep in mind when they try to “fact-check” claims that illegal aliens are receiving federal healthcare benefits. Before Obamacare, if you were a healthy young person, you didn’t have to subsidize anyone else’s insurance. You didn’t have to purchase comprehensive coverage you didn’t need. You could pay out-of-pocket for most visits, and keep coverage for the most serious, life-threatening issues, like cancer. The system that replaced this arrangement was a disastrous deal for most Americans. And it became a completely unworkable, catastrophic deal when Americans were forced to subsidize the healthcare plans of millions of foreign nationals, on top of their fellow citizens. As a result, this government shutdown should continue indefinitely until we have assurances that no illegal aliens will receive any taxpayer-funded healthcare. Yes, a long shutdown means that we’ll have to endure thousands more insufferable TikTok videos from furloughed federal bureaucrats. But it also means we’ll eventually have a functioning healthcare system. It means we’ll save hundreds of millions of dollars every month. And that’s a trade that, unless you’re an illegal alien or a federal government worker, is a trade we should take every single time.

What do you think?

'You voted to shut it down'

Katie Porter labeled the exchange 'unnecessarily argumentative'

'That's a real issue'

'That's such an abuse'

A police investigation is currently underway

'How can anyone think this is sustainable'

News Banned Books Week Most Banned Books of The Year List Includes Numerous Genre Titles and Authors Stephen King alone had 87 of his titles banned somewhere in the U.S. By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on October 8, 2025 Image: Penguin Random House Comment 0 Share New Share Image: Penguin Random House It’s Banned Books Week, an event designed to highlight the value of free and open access to information and bring readers together in support of the freedom to seek and to express ideas. In the lead-up to the week, PEN America released their report about the most banned books from 2024-2025. Overall, there were 6,870 cases of book bans across 23 states and 87 public school districts. Those cases involved 3,752 titles, 2,308 authors, 243 illustrators, and 38 translators. Unsurprisingly, genre artists were sadly well-represented on the list, with Stephen King receiving the highest number of bans—87 of his titles are impacted, as well as nine districts banning him completely as an author—as well as Sarah J. Maas, who ties with Ellen Hopkins for having the highest number of total author bans (33). Below are the Top 10 Banned Books for 2025. The list includes several genre books, including lauded classics, one that has been adapted into a Broadway musical and two feature films, with the first making over $750 million worldwide, and one whose sequel just came out with a garlic-scented edition. 1. A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess (23 bans) 2. [TIED] Breathless by Jennifer Niven (20 bans) 3. [TIED] Sold by Patricia McCormick (20 bans) 4. Last Night at the Telegraph Club by Malinda Lo (19 bans) 5. A Court of Mist and Fury by Sarah J. Maas (18 bans) 6. [TIE] Crank by Ellen Hopkins (17 bans) 6. [TIE] Forever… by Judy Blume (17 bans) 6. [TIE] The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky (17 bans) 6. [TIE] Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire (17 bans) 10. [TIE] All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M. Johnson (16 bans) 10. [TIE] A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah J. Maas (16 bans) 10. [TIE] Damsel by Elana K. Arnold (16 bans) 10. [TIE] The DUFF: Designated Ugly Fat Friend by Kody Keplinger (16 bans) 10. [TIE] Nineteen Minutes by Jodi Picoult (16 bans) 10. [TIE] Storm and Fury by Jennifer L. Armentrout (16 bans) You can find the full list of banned titles from the most recent report right here. Check out one (or all) of them at your local bookstore! [end-mark] The post Most Banned Books of The Year List Includes Numerous Genre Titles and Authors appeared first on Reactor.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday about an Illinois law that allows ballots to be counted that arrive up to 14 days after Election Day.  The plaintiffs, Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., and two presidential electors from the state, contend that federal law established Election Day and Illinois allows votes to come in two weeks longer than federal law allows, which would make such ballots effectively unlawful. Thus, unlawful ballots could cost Bost the election—or reduce his margin for victory.  The plaintiffs also argued the Bost campaign is further injured because it has to pay staff for an additional two weeks after the election.   Plaintiffs are represented by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.  Federal law 2 U.S. Code Section 7 states Election Day for federal offices is the Tuesday after the first Monday of November in even-numbered years.  Illinois says mail-in ballots must be postmarked by Election Day but can arrive up to two weeks later.  A district court and a 2-1 majority of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals determined the plaintiffs in the case of Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections lacked standing to challenge the state law. In other words, the lower courts determined that the plaintiffs challenging the law actually weren’t harmed by it, so they couldn’t bring a suit.  The lawsuit was first filed on May 25, 2022.   The case should be an easy one for the Supreme Court, said Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation.  “The decision of the lower courts was absurd,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “If a federal candidate whose election is affected by a state election law does not have standing to sue over that state election law, then no one has standing.” The two Illinois presidential electors joining Bost in the case are Laura Pollastrini and Susan Sweeney. If plaintiffs gain standing in this case, it would almost certainly pave the way for candidates to challenge state laws that allow ballots to arrive well after Election Day.  Rather than the merits of the law itself, the arguments before the Supreme Court concerned the issue of whether Bost and the electors had standing to bring the case in the first place.  But if the high court determines the lower courts improperly threw out the case based on standing, the lower courts will then have to rule on the merits of the ballot law.  The state of Illinois argued Wednesday that Bost, first elected in 2014, lacks standing in part because there is little chance he could lose a reelection contest. “There are some districts where the Republican registered parties are 98%; Democrats, too,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her question to the plaintiffs. “Your rule [allowing any candidate to have standing on election law] would say that the candidate who has not just an insubstantial, but a statistically almost impossible chance of winning or losing—that that candidate can come in and seek a change of that rule. Correct?”  Paul Clement, representing Bost and the electors, said any candidate should have standing in an election law case.  “As to the 2% voter, I’m going to stand with the 2% candidate. I stand in lockstep with the Socialist Workers Party, and however many percentage votes John Anderson got,” Clement said, referring to 1980 independent presidential candidate John Anderson.  Sotomayor replied, “Those are strange bedfellows you’re taking.” Clement said, “But I’m delighted to have those bedfellows, because that’s the way we think about elections in this country.” Illinois Solicitor General Jane Elinor Notz argued for a much stricter standard for a candidate to have standing to bring election law litigation.  Notz said “the substantial risk of losing an election” would be the key standard for standing in an election law case. Other examples she cited were “risk of not getting on the ballot” or “risk of not qualifying for public funding.” Justice Neil Gorsuch later asked if it might be “unseemly” for a federal court to prognosticate through their rulings what candidates have a good chance and what candidates don’t.  Notz replied, “I don’t think it’s more unseemly than in other cases where a plaintiff seeks to establish standing based on a substantial risk. “What I think a lot of people believe to be true, which is that loosening the rules for counting votes like this generally hurts Republican candidates, generally helps Democratic candidates,” Justice Samuel Alito said. He then asked why the plaintiffs didn’t include a more direct argument about that in their written brief that they filed with the lower court: “Why didn’t you pursue that? Why didn’t you try to do something with that?”  Clement replied, “When you plead a case in district court, you don’t expect to be in the Supreme Court defending every pleading that was sufficient understanding.” The justices who were appointed by Republican presidents generally seemed more open to granting standing, while the three Democrat appointees seemed more skeptical.  However, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested it’s not clear Bost is harmed by the law.  “You could argue that he will actually benefit from the additional time,” Thomas said. “Someone has to benefit, or there wouldn’t be a risk of competitive harm.” Meanwhile, Justice Elena Kagan seemed to be of two minds on the standing question.  “It seems quite inconsistent with our standing law to say, ‘Oh, we just have, like, an automatic rule for candidate standing.’ On the other hand, I’m sort of in sympathy with the view that this bar should not be all that high and that you shouldn’t have to say, “Here are the polls that show I could lose as a result of this rule,’” Kagan said. “It’s like, all you have to do is come in and say why it is that the rule puts you at a disadvantage relative to what’s come before.” Utah is the only other state that accepts ballots 14 days after Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Alaska and Maryland allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to 10 days after the election. Meanwhile, 10 other states allow ballots to arrive seven or fewer days after Election Day.  The post What to Expect From Supreme Court Case on Ballots That Come in After Elections appeared first on The Daily Signal.