Congratulations, you found your dream partner! They're caring, attractive, and preternaturally good with your parents. The only problem? Finding the time—and mental energy—to show them how much you care. Living with a busy schedule is always challenging, but keeping the romance alive while also juggling work, family obligations, and personal commitments? That can feel nearly impossible. Many couples find themselves falling into predictable routines that leave little room for genuine connection: they come home exhausted, eat a quick dinner, watch television, then collapse into bed, only to repeat the cycle the next day.Intentional relationships are the game-changer. Rather than letting precious free time slip away on autopilot, happy couples have proven that specific activities strengthen their bond while creating lasting memories together. These aren't grand romantic gestures or expensive date nights—they're consistent, meaningful ways of engaging with each other that anyone can adopt. Intentional relationships are a game-changer. Photo credit: CanvaRelationship experts agree: successful partnerships are built on activities that promote connection, playfulness, and mutual growth. The key lies in how couples approach their shared time—with intention, kindness, and a genuine spirit of partnership.(1) They put their phones awayAs Mark Travers, a psychologist who studies couples, finds, “a couple who spends a lot of time together, but is constantly distracted by texts, emails or social media, probably isn’t as happy as a couple who spends less time together, but without their phones.” He recommends carving out one-on-one time without any technological interference: cooking dinner together, with phones out of sight; going on a tech-free hike; or a simple morning spent together where the only objects in your hands are a coffee mug and breakfast.via GIPHY(2) They engage in playful or creative activities togetherPlayfulness and a stimulated mind are key traits in happy relationships. Instead of turning on the TV at night, happy couples often play board games or card games together, challenge each other in video games, or participate in friendly competitions like trivia nights to keep things light and fun. For more cerebral couples, finding time to engage in creative activities such as painting or even decorating the apartment can strengthen the connection.via GIPHY(3) They spend time outdoors and stay activeHappy couples love to get the blood pumping! Many successful relationships find themselves outdoors: hiking, biking, gardening, or taking a simple morning walk around the neighborhood. These activities not only promote physical health, but also offer valuable opportunities for relaxed conversation and shared adventure.via GIPHY(4) They practice small acts of kindness Small, everyday gestures can make a world of difference—making each other coffee in the morning, leaving notes, giving a meaningful hug, or surprising your partner with a thoughtful gift at the end of a long week. These tiny actions accumulate and significantly impact relationship satisfaction. Even seemingly commonplace rituals, like a goodbye kiss before heading to work, can substantially increase happiness between couples.via GIPHY(5) They schedule time for physical and emotional intimacyWhen life comes at you fast, it can be easy to forgo important connections, like cuddling, massages, and sex, in a relationship. Many studies show that couples who have a satisfying sex life are more likely to be happy in their relationships, which makes structured intimacy a “good thing,” according to Travers. “Many people think it can diminish spontaneity, but if anything, it actually removes the mental fatigue of trying to make intimacy happen,” he writes.via GIPHY(6) They allow for individual recharge timeYes, togetherness is essential. But happy couples also recognize each other's need for solo activities, which ensures that both partners feel refreshed and fulfilled. Hanging out with friends without your partner is healthy. Going to the grocery store alone can be surprisingly beneficial. Even morning journaling to collect your thoughts and reconnect with yourself can be a meaningful practice.via GIPHY(7) They hang out and socialize togetherMutual social interactions reinforce a couple's bond and add spice and variety to their routine. Try planning time with mutual friends or hosting a game night together to unlock your relationship's potential.via GIPHY(8) They dream about the future togetherHappy couples feel safe with one another, and that includes discussing their futures together. If you're feeling stagnant or locked into a routine, try making vision boards together or dreaming about future adventures to stay aligned and inspired by your shared journey.via GIPHYRelationships evolve over time. The people we are when we first meet are not the same people we find ourselves with day in and day out. For some, this familiarity can feel overwhelming—but couples who thrive recognize that their relationship deserves the same attention and care they give to other important aspects of life. Through these small, daily actions, any couple can build a strong foundation capable of weathering any storm.

Bill Nye has been a household name for decades, though many Millennials likely can't say his name without adding "the science guy" behind it. He played an integral part in the childhood of an entire generation with his television program teaching kids science in a fun, engaging way. The theme song will forever be emblazoned in the minds of those who grew up watching him. When he made his way to social media with his familiar kindness and humor, people flocked to his pages for the nostalgia but stayed for the knowledge. If there was one thing Nye was going to do, it was stand with scientific evidence no matter what. Due to his love of science and being established as a trusted and pivotal voice in the worlds of science and tech, it wasn't surprising that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. would have Nye's phone number. But what is surprising is that Nye blocked him. Bill Nye leaning against podium speaking at ASUPhoto by Gage Skidmore/WikimediaA lot of scientific research is funded through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Americans also depend on the accuracy of information leaving the office of HHS, whether it be vaccine recommendations, baby formula safety, or protective measures to be taken with a new disease outbreak. The department of Health and Human Services handles nearly everything that has to do with the health of American citizens and everyone who visits the country. In 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer and descendant of the Kennedy political dynasty, was confirmed as the new Secretary of HHS. While his nomination raised concerns due to his anti-vaccine activism and involvement in the Trump administration's Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, the son of RFK assured Americans he would follow the science. But it would seem that this isn't the case according to the science guy who blocked RFK Jr. from being able to contact him via phone or text. RFK Jr. Photo by Gage Skidmore/FlickrIn a recent interview with Men's Health, Nye explains that the current health secretary would text him on occasion—but at some point the texts got to be out of hand. The magazine describes Nye holding up his iPhone to show multiple walls of text messages from RFK saying, "This is real. That’s Bobby Kennedy Jr.” Turns out Kennedy had been sending him long text messages back to back making an argument for not vaccinating children due to its (repeatedly scientifically debunked) claimed links to autism. "Just no self-awareness. And if you read these articles he sent, they’re all this speculation about autism and just cause-and-effect, and mercury in vaccines, that maybe there’s a connection. I wrote him back and said, ‘Okay, I’ll read your book. I think you’ve confused causation with correlation. Your friend, Bill.’ And he sent this,” Nye told Men's Health before showing the interviewer more extremely long text messages. “So I wrote, ‘Okay, no more texts.’ And he started again! So I cut him off. He does not have good judgment. He is not suited for this job.”Nye didn't stop with venting his frustrations around the excessive paragraphs of texts. The mechanical engineer, actor, and author frustratingly pointed out the recent measles outbreak in Texas, which has been attributed to a lack of vaccines that led to insufficient heard immunity. "There’s an outbreak of measles in Texas. Did you hear about this? It was a religious sect that has historically low vaccination rates, "he says in part before later adding, "Unvaccinated people can, and usually do, spread a disease. And that’s why we have these rules, for public health! It’s not arbitrary." Bill Nye speaking. Photo by Gage Skidmore/FlickrThe topic of vaccines, which RFK Jr. not only hit on, but droned on about incessantly via text message, seems to be a sticking point for Nye. He is clearly fired up while speaking to Men's Health about the issue, and it may be due to his own experiences as a child."The other thing that’s so remarkable about what’s going on now—I went to elementary school with a guy who had polio. You do not want polio! And the reason you don’t get polio is because of a vaccine that was discovered that keeps you from getting polio! What is wrong with you, man?" Nye said.He explains the minute risk of contracting the disease from the vaccine, but stresses how rare it is before explaining how things worked before vaccines existed when he was a child. But this isn't the first time The Science Guy has shared his views on vaccines. He's done multiple interviews with outlets like Now This where he explains how vaccines work and was even part of a 2021 campaign to help kids understand how COVID vaccines protected them. Nye doesn't just have a bone to pick with people who are against vaccinations, he is against anti-science and uses his platforms to educate the public. He's testified before congress and debunked conspiracy theories on Big Think. Nye has also ventured back into the entertainment industry with Bill Nye Saves the World, which ran from 2017-2018 and The End is Nye which aired on Peacock in 2022. Nye is a trusted voice for millions of Americans and, while blocking RFK Jr. might appear harsh to some, to others he's simply staying true to science.

Have you ever been to a party and run into someone new, only to immediately think that they have above-average intelligence? They probably didn’t begin to explain the theory of relativity or delve into the differences between Keynesian and Austrian economics, but you knew that they were very intelligent. What was it that made you realize they were incredibly smart?It was probably the attitude they had about learning new information and the care they took in ensuring that, while in conversation, their answers were thoughtful and they didn’t just talk to hear themselves talk. There was probably something very intentional about how they approached the conversation.A Redditor recently asked the ProductivityCafe subforum, “What’s a subtle sign that someone is very intelligent?” and people shared the characteristics they believe highly intelligent individuals possess. Ultimately, the commenters believe that highly intelligent individuals are curious, exhibit great cognitive flexibility, and have no problem admitting when they don’t know something or if they are wrong. A woman reviewing information on a tablet.via Canva/Photos Here are 15 ‘subtle’ signs that someone is very intelligent1. They admit when they don't know something"They're perfectly happy to admit when they don't know something. They see it as an opportunity to learn more and not as socially embarrassing.""To brag a lot and toot my own horn, I’m an engineer at NASA. There is little to no pride in knowing things from my peers. We all genuinely enjoy learning and are often happy to be proven wrong. And everyone in our group can explain complex things elegantly and simply. I hope I’m do both of those things, and strive to."2. They make things easy to understand"They can explain complicated things in a way that breaks it down and makes it easy to understand for those not 'in-the-know.'""This is probably the best answer. If you can explain physics, math, interpersonal tumult in a way that a younger person can understand, that’s true intelligence. Passing of knowledge without condescension is my goal at least." A math professor.via Canva/Photos3. They know what they don't know"I work with some legitimately brilliant doctors. They will ALWAYS defer to another specialist’s opinion on an area that isn’t their specialty, often saying they’ll refer to someone smarter than them. The more someone knows, the more they realise how much they don’t know."4. They are open-minded"And will change their opinion when presented with new information. Stupid people just double down.""A wise person has more questions than they have answers."5. They follow the data"An intelligent person will not box themselves into a position they can't change, because an intelligent person will pivot the moment they realize they're wrong. A person of lesser intelligence will call that "flip-flopping" but it's really following the data."6. They don't take sides until they know they are right"This makes me think of something a math professor said to a class I was in, rough paraphrase from memory: 'You know, grids are a lot like arguments; Sides are for polygons, not arguments. Arguments have no shape, so the only useful reference is what position you're taking in relation to the argument. Same with grids!' That guy had so many strangely useful little nuggets like that he'd just lead off with to engage people and help them understand that math is just about numbers and number-rules. He'd argue if you know what to do at all times, math isn't hard... it's just complicated."7. They're good listeners"They’re a good listener, and remember what they heard from the speaker. Also, they’re discriminating in who they listen to.""Discriminating who you listen to is hard when you’re younger, I feel like. I’m only 28, but picking whose opinion I value is so much easier now than it was five years ago."8. They're funny"Not every smart person can be witty, but a witty person is smart for sure.""I think this point often gets lost. I've never met a really funny person who wasn't also very smart."9. It's all in the eyes"The eyes. There is a special glare when you are speaking or listening to an intelligent person that is just not there when intelligence is lacking.""I feel like this is what I lack, and people can tell. Can’t show this when you have social anxiety and can’t focus!"10. They change their minds"Cognitive flexibility. They take nothing as irrefutable and can change their mind when presents with new facts. Clarity and easy comprehension of new information.""This is the basis for Bayes' theorem, when presented with new plausible evidence, existence beliefs should be updated." A professor writing on a black board.via Canva/Photos11. They ask great questions"They ask amazingly insightful questions."12. They have elegant solutions"I really see lots of answers depending on subjective perception and personal experiences with probably smart people... It's really about their world they live in not yours. There are rarely any common signs among any two smart people. But I'd say the two main hints are they can explain complicated stuff in far simpler terms and they can come up with good solutions to almost any problem they have adequate knowledge about. Being social depends a lot on your youth and how people treated you. Most "stupid" people are threatened by intelligence and bully those who are intelligent."13. They can discuss controversial topics without getting riled up"They know how to have a mature, adult conversation when it comes to personal differences with people (as opposed to the usual defensive, denying, and deflective bullshit where the person you're trying to communicate with doesn't hear a word you say).""Being able to see both sides of an argument or political issue without having their mind clouded by propaganda or bias. Also, changing their mind about such things when presented with different facts."14. They don't blindly follow a party"When they don't blindly align with one political party over the other and instead focus on actual issues.""Yes. And this includes anarchists and libertarians. When will people quit feeling the need to put themselves in a box politically?"15. They think before they speak"They think before they speak, some of the most intelligent people I’ve known haven’t spoken on impulse, they’ve always thought their words through carefully."

That's a big number.

With the new Netflix adaptation on the horizon, it's a great time to check back in with the original cast.

No, this column is not asserting that Colin Powell, who stands as one of the worst mistakes of the Bush Republican era, has any relevance. Quite the contrary, but what I will argue here is that one of the chief benefits of President Trump’s successful airstrikes, which have done grievous damage to the Iranian nuclear program, if not particularly laying waste to the Iranian regime itself, is to make clear that Powell can be discarded once and for all. Powell was a terrible Secretary of State for many reasons. The most flagrant of those being that he utterly, and consequentially, failed when assigned a critical task during George W. Bush’s signature presidential action, that being the invasion and conquest of Iraq in the years following the 9/11 attacks. (RELATED: Let’s Hope Trump’s ‘Spectacular Military Success’ Is Not Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’) The war plans for that invasion called for a pincer movement; namely, that U.S. troops would penetrate Iraq from the south, invading from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but also from the north, coming from our NATO ally, Turkey. As Iraq had attacked both the Kuwaitis, briefly occupying and looting that country, and Saudi Arabia, it was easy to get the position from those two countries to stage from their territory. But the Turks were recalcitrant, and real negotiating skill was needed to bring them aboard. Forget about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the Iraq War for a moment. We’ll get to that subject shortly. The war was decided upon at a level above Powell’s pay grade — Bush made the decision to go, and Congress made the decision to authorize it and to pay for the Iraq adventure. As such, the war was then U.S. policy, and as the secretary of state, Powell was tasked with getting the Turks to allow the Fourth Infantry Division to open that second front. He couldn’t do it. With the warehouse full of carrots and sticks available for those negotiations, Powell nonetheless failed. Could he defend that failure with excuses? Yeah, sure. There are always excuses. But because 4ID couldn’t go in from the north, there was no second front and while the initial invasion stage of Operation Iraqi Freedom was indeed a military marvel, what was lost was the ability to round up and neutralize elements of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath regime before they melted into the Sunni parts of Iraq in the northwest of the country. Where they became the Iraqi resistance and, in large measure, ultimately, ISIS. How many Americans were killed or maimed in the years that followed as our forces did what they could to pacify that country? It’s a number too grievous to mention even all these years later. Powell’s failure to open that second front through negotiations with the Turks still stands as one of the most famous diplomatic bloopers of this century. (RELATED: The Unintended Consequences of War) None of that is particularly relevant today, but Powell is also famous for something else with respect to the Iraq War. It’s this quote… You need to understand, if you take out a government, take out a regime, guess who becomes the government and regime and is responsible for the country? You are. So if you break it, you own it. This became known as Powell’s “Pottery Barn Rule,” and it’s utter and total nonsense. It was actually allowed to become American foreign policy doctrine during the Bush years, and an utter disaster followed. Trillions of dollars spent, thousands of lives lost, untold amounts of national prestige set ablaze. And for what? (RELATED: The Mission Is Never Accomplished) For Colin Powell’s fear of being blamed? That certain people predisposed to hate America might hate America? What stupidity. Powell was praised for having “broken barriers” in attaining the heights within the U.S. government that he attained, but of course, he was a mere careerist and certainly not a loyal soldier for the conservative movement that he hamstrung. And the funny thing was that Powell was against the Iraq War that he went to the U.N. and shilled for… badly, as it turned out, because the argument he used to sell that war was Iraq’s supposed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, which never ended up being found. The rumors persisted for years that much of Iraq’s WMD stash was evacuated to Syria. If that was true, it sure would have been nice to have 4ID closing in from Turkey to intercept that haul, no? This might all seem like old news. But I rehash it to establish that the strategic incompetence which underlay the Iraq War, which in itself was an example of strategic incompetence, was bombed away at Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordo two weeks ago. Here I should give credit to Ace of Spades’ Buck Throckmorton, who on Monday did yeoman work describing the sea change the airstrikes on Iran represented… Our political class has repeatedly told us that the only allowable “solutions” to pressing problems are alternatives not embraced by the majority of Americans. That is why we finally turned to Donald Trump. Just one example was the border crisis — Democrats argued for mass amnesty and a wide-open border, while establishment Republicans countered by also proposing mass amnesty with a slightly less porous border. Trump laughed in all their faces, shut the border, and started deporting criminal aliens. In the matter of foreign military engagement, we have also been presented just two bad options over the past few decades. 1) Massive military commitment to foreign wars, including nation building and boots on the ground in perpetuity, all with an endless airlift of fallen troops being flown home to Dover AFB. 2) Pacifism, with the U.S. never unleashing its military might, even where it is appropriate. There is another much better option, which President Trump just demonstrated — the use of our military to destroy what needs destroying, and then leaving the mess as a lesson. If Iran attempts to rebuild its nuclear program in coming years, we can bust it all up again. We don’t have to occupy Iran or pretend that it will become a western democracy. It can figure out whatever it wants to become, but if Iran restarts its nuclear program or exports terror again, it can also face our wrath again. Powell’s Pottery Barn rule was a misapplication of U.S. post-World War II history, in which it was somehow America’s moral duty to rebuild other conquered nations as Germany and Japan had been rebuilt. No such duty ever existed, of course — we rebuilt Germany and Japan so that the USSR wouldn’t do it and then repurpose them as even more powerful enemies within the Soviet sphere of influence. In other words, because it was in our interest to rebuild them. That was never operable in the case of Iraq. Nor of Afghanistan. It’s worth conducting a thought experiment: what if we had gone into Afghanistan, laid waste to all the Al Qaeda and Taliban enemies we could find in 12 months in a purely punitive expedition, and then left? The Pottery Barners would shriek that this would merely leave Afghanistan back under the Taliban’s control once we left. And? This is different from our current reality, how? Oh, of course. The trillions of dollars in military and “humanitarian” spending would still be in our national possession. Iraq was far more a war of choice, of course. We didn’t have to go in. In retrospect, a better argument than the WMD shell game Powell played at Turtle Bay was that the Iraqis had defeated the U.N. sanctions regime imposed after the first Gulf War, and they had to be punished for having done so. But that’s the argument of a globalist, not someone looking out for American interests. At the end of the day, whether the Iraqis were rearming themselves for another pointless war against their neighbors or their own citizens never made a whit of difference to our national security. Once we finally saw where our interests actually lay. The Iranian regime wasn’t reformed by our bombing of those three nuclear sites. They haven’t been chastened. The country’s top ayatollah issued a fatwa — a religious hit-man contract — against President Trump over the weekend. And a foreign policy calculation not burdened by stupidities like the Pottery Barn rule might well consider such an offense to be fresh ground for new airstrikes. I’d rather not see those, but on the other hand, you can’t put a call out to terrorists, many of whom are quite likely embedded on our own soil, thanks to Joe Biden’s wide-open border for the previous four years, to kill our duly elected president without some notable consequences. (RELATED: From Tehran to Texas) The point is that, shorn of Powell’s idiotic rule, we can consider these issues in an adult manner, and we can deal with our national security problems without feeling the obligation to bankrupt our public fisc with fresh forever wars. And therefore the understandable gnashing of teeth by the Tucker Carlsons of the world — Carlson’s freak-out over Iran was driven in no small part by a conviction that it would be the deep state/military industrial complex’s insistence on the Pottery Barn rule that would turn Iran into another Iraq — can be put to bed. For now. Powell has been gone for three years. I don’t wish to exhume him for further denigration. In fact, I hope we don’t have to exhume him at all. And it’s worth giving Trump thanks for making this the new state of play. READ MORE from Scott McKay: Five Quick Things: The Coming State of Being The Fourth Era Comes to the Big Rotten Apple So Far, So Good The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

In case you missed it, the scheme by special interest groups to replace the Electoral College with a so-called national popular vote may have just suffered a mortal blow — and it happened in a blue state, Maine. The battle is raging between Democrats who wish to stay in the National Popular Vote compact and those defecting to the Republican minority in increasingly larger numbers. That battle isn’t over, but the fact that conservatives are making progress at all shows Democrats are abandoning the scheme altogether. Here’s why. President Donald Trump’s popular vote win in 2024 shattered Democrats’ delusion that Republicans had become a permanent minority party. Republican legislators should act now to defeat this harmful pact that violates the principles of America’s federal democracy by reminding their Democratic colleagues of the value the Electoral College provides to American voters. Why does it matter? Had the compact been in effect in 2016, Hillary Clinton would have become president despite winning only 20 states and visiting just 37 — infamously skipping Wisconsin altogether. Without needing swing states’ electoral votes, she might have won the popular vote by racking up Democratic votes in fewer than 10 states… and won the White House, thanks to the compact. The compact is a backdoor strategy to bypass the Constitution without an amendment. Member states agree to award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner — regardless of how their citizens vote. Once states totaling 270 electoral votes join — a majority of all electoral votes — the compact kills the Electoral College by making it irrelevant. So far, states representing 209 electoral votes have joined the compact. If just the states that passed it through one legislative branch joined, it would give the compact 283 electoral votes — well over the threshold to override the Constitution and hand the presidency to whichever candidate wins the popular vote in 2028. That’s why it’s so urgent to start rolling the compact back immediately. Some national popular vote supporters sincerely want to destroy state lines and our federal democracy, but the compact gained steam in blue states from raw partisan motivation. Elites concocted the scheme after George W. Bush won the White House without the popular vote in 2000, and formed the organization National Popular Vote (NPV) in 2006, the group behind the interstate compact. It took Trump repeating Bush’s feat in 2016 — winning the White House while losing the popular vote — for Democrat elites to fear the worst: They would never cut inroads into “flyover states” and overcome what they believed was a Republican advantage in the Electoral College. This helped NPV activists convince dozens of blue states that they needed to bypass the Electoral College as a backup plan to cementing Democrat power in future elections. The NPV lobbyists were canny enough to realize early on that there aren’t enough blue states to make the compact a success. So, they used sleazy tactics and flattery to convince Republican legislators in red states that the scheme is somehow “bipartisan.” NPV’s hired gun, Saul Anuzis, lost the 2011 Republican National Committee (RNC) chairmanship to Reince Priebus, but that didn’t stop him from circulating a pro-NPV letter on fake RNC letterhead. Amazingly, Anuzis later tried to convince Republicans angry with the 2020 election irregularities to blame the Electoral College instead, calling the NPV plan “a bipartisan proposal that takes a federalist approach.” NPV tried to woo Republican legislators directly with expensive resort trips. After a free day of vacationing in Hawaii or Panama, it cynically tried to convince them that scrapping the Electoral College would improve democracy and help Republicans win elections. Many of the legislators were dumb enough to buy it, and some of the states where the compact passed only one legislative branch are so red they have Republican trifectas. A Shield Against Political Monoculture The Electoral College exists because states exist. It serves as a mechanism to ensure that presidents are chosen by a cross-section of states and citizens. Electing a president by popular vote would weaken the federalism on which the country was founded. Switching to a popular vote would also remove checks and balances unique to first-world democracies like the U.K., Italy, Japan, and Germany, which do not directly elect their heads of state. Of the 38 OECD countries, only Mexico, South Korea, and the Philippines directly elect their heads of state, and each is marred by frequent bouts of corruption and political instability. Critics argue this makes people’s votes irrelevant because candidates only focus on a handful of swing states and ignore the rest. But if the country abandoned the Electoral College, presidential candidates would focus exclusively on population centers, giving California, Texas, and New York more attention but sidelining most of the rest. The Electoral College forces coalition-building and restrains regionalism by protecting the interests of small states and rural voters — whether black Democrats in rural Georgia or white Republicans in rural Wisconsin. It allows these voters to represent the interests of similar voters in non-swing states. In a popular vote system, Democratic candidates would not only ignore rural voters but also the economic interests of small blue states like Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, and Delaware. Republicans, Time to Go on Offense NPV tried to fool Republicans into believing that scrapping American democracy is a bipartisan issue. The opposite, in fact, is true, and it’s time for Republicans in blue and purple states to make that case. Both parties have a truly bipartisan interest in preserving the Electoral College. Small state and rural Democrats have unique interests and needs that presidential candidates beholden to large state and urban constituencies will not address. If enough states had already joined the compact, states that Kamala Harris won would have been forced to give their electoral votes to Trump. In that scenario, Trump would have won 521–17. Most Democratic voters probably don’t want that and prefer their Electoral College chances when their candidate loses the popular vote. There’s reason to think Democrats are now abandoning that scheme. The Maine vote shows why. The state’s House of Representatives voted 76–71 to withdraw the state from the compact. The state’s Senate killed the bill 18–16, with one Republican abstaining and two Democrats voting with the Republican minority. This marks considerable progress considering their senate voted last year 18–12 to join. If Republicans can flip one or two seats next year, they’ll have the numbers to withdraw Maine from the compact. Republicans in other compact member-states should follow suit. They won’t gain majorities in New Jersey, Oregon, or Washington anytime soon, but keeping the Electoral College should not be a partisan issue. Withdrawing from this elitist scheme will prevent blue states’ electors from going to a Republican popular vote winner who loses the Electoral College. Such an outcome is not inconceivable. In 2022, for instance, Republicans handily won the Senate’s national popular vote but lost the Senate. Trump disproved the elitist hypothesis that Republicans with their flyover constituency would be unable to win the popular vote again. His victory defeated the purpose of the compact, which liberal special interests believed would provide Democrats an easier path to victory. Republican state legislators should push to withdraw from the compact while the 2024 election remains fresh on Democrats’ minds by reminding them that the Electoral College provides the best representation for diverse voters in both parties. Jacob Grandstaff is an investigative researcher for Restoration News. READ MORE from Jacob Grandstaff: Trump’s Plan to Pay Illegal Aliens to Self-Deport is Brilliant The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

You don’t need a business degree to understand accountability. Most people figure that out by simply showing up to work because, in the private sector, not going to your job leads quickly to not having one. Studying business taught me how expensive dysfunction can get and how quickly systems fall apart when no one’s held responsible. Moreover, it taught me that if a process is broken, it gets fixed. That’s the only answer that matters to the shareholder and the company brass. But in Washington, it’s a different story. Within the Beltway, failure is not only tolerated but insulated, and bureaucratic bloat is protected. That bloat is an ever-evolving get-rich-quick scheme by individuals and organizations peddling their own agendas. Now, thanks to a new coalition of progressive legal activists and union allies, even the idea of holding federal employees accountable is now being spun as a threat to democracy — and political opportunists are ready to pounce. (RELATED: As Trump’s Federal Layoffs Continue, Critics Miss This Crucial Point.) The Rise Up Federal Workers Legal Defense Network sounds like a parody, and it should be relegated to one. Sadly, though, it’s real and it’s giving pro bono (read: free) legal support to fired federal workers they falsely claim have been “fired illegally.” This organization, fittingly located on Black Lives Matter Plaza in D.C., is partnered with federal employee unions and the AFL-CIO, among others, as well as politically charged organizations like the People’s Party Project. According to its website, the People’s Party Project is “a movement of law students and attorneys organizing for a democratized legal system which empowers working people and opposes subordination in any form.” They also say they “believe that public policy decisions should reflect democratic values, rooted in a combination of majoritarian rule and a justice-oriented ideology.” (RELATED: A ‘War’ on the Civil Service or Controlling a Powerful Union Political Machine?) This organization exists solely to shield underperforming bureaucrats from accountability. On its surface, this coalition says it exists to defend civil servants from unlawful firings amid ongoing workforce reductions. In reality, it’s a coordinated effort to resist the federal government reform demanded by the American people at the ballot box in November. This organization exists solely to shield underperforming bureaucrats from accountability and politicize a constitutionally protected — and logically needed — power of the presidency. The organization seeks to give more protections to already professionally bubble-wrapped individuals and only serves to entrench workers who believe themselves superior to the American people in the federal government. This isn’t just stupid — it’s Level Seven Turbo Stupid. In addition to its pro bono legal advice, Rise Up offers federal workers free “know your rights” training in response to what it calls an “onslaught” of workforce changes by a duly elected president. The organization is not hiding the fact that its aim is to resist the American people’s democratic demand to fix and streamline the federal government. In its words, it is preparing to help workers “fully vindicate their rights” — which, in practice, means gearing up to challenge any reform before it even takes place. (RELATED: Serving the Servants: Ending ‘Stakeholder’ Government) Let’s make one thing abundantly clear: this is not about workplace rights or unjust firings; this is about resistance by any means necessary, even if you look foolish while doing it. The Rise Up network isn’t responding to violations; it’s preemptively challenging the very idea of civil service reform. These are the same organizations that have consistently fought efforts to increase transparency, improve performance standards, and bring the federal workforce in line with the priorities of the American people. And when reform gets blocked, real people suffer. The Department of Health and Human Services is a prime example of a federal agency needing serious scrutiny. For decades, its budget has grown in the name of public health. HHS spending has skyrocketed by more than 547 percent, far outpacing the growth in overall federal spending. And for what? A sicker, sadder, more vulnerable population. Recent alarming statistics underscore this failure: more than one in five children over the age of six is now obese, a staggering 270 percent increase since the 1970s. The rate of prediabetes in teens has more than doubled in just 20 years, now affecting over one in four. Childhood cancer rates have risen nearly 40 percent since 1975. It’s hard to know what, if anything, HHS could do differently to change those outcomes. But a change is needed. Flooding the agency with cash hasn’t made it, or the American people, healthier. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) revelations have shown similar wanton spending at the Department of Education, the Department of State, and almost everywhere across the federal government. Oftentimes, this irresponsible spending is done at the request of unelected bureaucrats who believe their big spending idea will net them an award or promotion. The Rise Up Legal Defense Network only exists to protect these individuals and ensure that abuses of taxpayer dollars can continue. This is just backwards activism in favor of the entrenched Washington machine over the American people, plain and simple. It is an Ouroboros of grifting, willing to keep eating its own tail so long as it can keep pushing its two-minute hate against the Trump administration and anyone who disagrees with its muddled prescriptions. The American people didn’t vote for a permanent class of bureaucrats. They voted to challenge that culture and reform the federal government to serve We, the People, not Them, the Bureaucrats. The Rise Up Legal Defense Network isn’t standing up for justice. It’s standing up for special interests and the federal bureaucracy. Houston Keene joined Democracy Restored after a career working in Congress and as a nationally syndicated journalist covering politics, including the executive branch and government ethics. Houston was born in Austin, Texas, and is a proud father, husband, and Baylor Bear. READ MORE: As Trump’s Federal Layoffs Continue, Critics Miss This Crucial Point. A ‘War’ on the Civil Service or Controlling a Powerful Union Political Machine? Serving the Servants: Ending ‘Stakeholder’ Government The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote that thoughts come on dove’s feet and steer the world. Advocates of economic liberty must hope that the master thinker was, for once, mistaken. Because in the case of capitalism’s comeback, it’s more the metaphorical chainsaw that’s leading the way. Argentina’s President Javier Milei, who made the aggressive chainsaw meme a central campaign symbol in 2023, speaks not in subtle fugues but in fortissimo. A brief sample from a 2021 interview with La Nación: “The state is a criminal mechanism by which a majority steals money from the rest.” Music to the ears of libertarians, long marginalized and ridiculed for defending the free market by a leftist-statist majority. But Milei, a principled libertarian, recognized that defeating the deeply rooted socialism embedded in minds and media alike requires clear and unflinching language. Socialism tends to resurface across generations — a kind of ideological herpes that doesn’t respond to homeopathic treatment. What’s needed is a hard shock therapy. Milei’s Shock Therapy And that’s exactly what Milei offered his Peronism-plagued nation in 2023 — and Argentinians took him up on it. The bitter memory of a currency collapse just five years earlier, followed by a crippling economic crisis, was still fresh. For once, the link between an overgrown state and societal decay was too obvious for the media to obfuscate, as is still common practice in Germany, for instance. In record time, 50,000 federal bureaucrats were dismissed — 9.6 percent of the public workforce. The number of ministries was cut in half. Public sector salaries were reduced. Government spending dropped from 39 percent to 32.7 percent of GDP, with a target of 25 percent. A revolution in the power dynamic between citizen and state. Once again, the chainsaw made its appearance. Against the Leviathan of the state, it remains the weapon of choice. That 6 percent reduction in the state’s footprint is transformative: less parasitic extraction, more space for real enterprise, entrepreneurship, and decentralized investment. Only under such conditions can an economy truly prosper. It’s this seemingly small, but in truth massive, shift that promises to give Argentina a new identity. If Milei succeeds, he becomes a dangerous antagonist to the prevailing order. He will be the counterpoint who, with clarity and flair, exposes the failings of centralized, invasive governance as practiced in the EU. Bold Even on Enemy Ground Like a sculptor removing excess marble, Milei carves away at decades of bloated dysfunction, envisioning a lean, functional state — fit to fulfill its primary duties of internal and external security. His policies carve out space for personal responsibility, initiative, and growth. By drawing boundaries around state power, he throws open the gates for the private sector. At the World Economic Forum in Davos 2024, Milei offered one of his now-famous provocations, holding up a mirror to the pilgrims of global statism: “Socialism is a failure — economically, culturally, and morally.” Rarely has a G20 leader spoken with such blunt clarity about the dangers of socialism and European statism. One senses that Milei draws vital energy from the tension between freedom and the coercive bureaucratic state. A First Rich Harvest And his bold strategy is paying off. Argentina’s economy exploded with 5.8 percent growth in Q1 this year. Private consumption surged 11.6 percent. And as if the country’s long-standing inflation curse had been lifted, the rate in May fell to just 1.5 percent. This train seems unstoppable. What a break from the old regime: Under the socialist Kirchners, inflation served as a stealth tax and tool of expropriation. Argentina, once a wealthy society, paid dearly to prop up a centralized state. But Milei has cut off a hidden lifeline — because inflation benefits debtors with fixed nominal obligations. And no debtor is bigger than the modern hyper-state, which profits handsomely from inflation via progressive tax brackets and static income thresholds. Argentina’s comeback story could fill volumes, but one more metric should suffice: Morgan Stanley projects that the credit market — often a telltale sign of investor confidence — will grow by an astounding 50 percent this year. Mortgage lending? Up 260 percent in just 12 months. Argentinians are beginning to believe in their future again. Fortune Favors the Bold A bit of good fortune helps Milei’s cause: his reform blitz coincides with a regional recovery and a weakening U.S. dollar — reducing refinancing pressure on Argentina’s debt pile. That buys him room to deepen his reforms and restructure the state. And given Milei’s media savvy, it’s easy to imagine him turning this triumph into a meme: “The state is not the solution — it’s the problem.” A hard-edged mantra that predictably shocks statist Germany. But for those willing to examine Germany’s problems without ideological blinders, Milei’s whip-smart insight could prove enlightening. Rolling back the state would address a host of issues — from mass migration into welfare systems, to fiscal overreach, to crushing bureaucracy. But that will only happen when politicians have exhausted their last reserves of credibility — and voters finally demand the state Leviathan be cut down to size. Berlin’s Greenhouse To Germany’s green radicals, “Debt Lars,” and socialist engineers, Milei’s success story might as well be written in Martian. In Berlin, central planners, redistributionists, and climate neurotics gather for an endless séance in honor of the control society. They’ve found the perfect ecosystem: a politically nurtured greenhouse where their ideology thrives. The city has become a psychological greenhouse for the very strains of thinking now overrunning society. One more Milei quote — freely translated: “Give socialism the reins, and it’ll end in misery — just more equally shared.” And the seeds of German socialism are sprouting fast. The state’s share of GDP is barreling toward the 50 percent mark. Berlin’s elites are determined to breach it. With a trillion euros in new debt planned, they aim to rewrite the legacy of 90 years of Keynesian failure. But economic gravity will end this ideological joyride. Bond markets will erect a wall — and Berlin’s policies will slam into it like flies on a windowpane. Intellectually hollowed out, historically blind, and ideologically obstinate, Germany is marching in the opposite direction of Milei. Somewhere down the road, their paths will cross. They may nod politely, but they won’t understand each other. One path leads upward. The other, downhill. READ MORE from Thomas Kolbe: Battle for Free Speech: EU/Europe Deploys Its Artillery Carbon Tax and the Green Deal: The EU’s Climate Heist Is Underway Meloni’s Italy: A Refreshing Crescendo to Brussels’ Dissonance The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

New polls from Emerson College on hypothetical Republican and Democratic 2028 primaries position Vice President JD Vance with a 34-percentage-point lead over the next candidate, while no clear frontrunner is emerging on the Democratic side. It goes without saying that hypothetical polls are hardly decisive. The election is still almost four years away, and President Donald Trump is far from a lame duck. Trump himself said in February that “it’s too early” to name Vance as his successor in 2028, despite the fact that Vance “is very capable.” The president even said he was “not joking” about the possibility of running for a third term, but he later ruled out the possibility on NBC’s Meet the Press in May. Nonetheless, the fact that Emerson’s poll reports Trump’s vice president as the clear favorite for 2028 reflects that Trump maintains a solid hold on the Republican Party that he forcefully took over almost 10 years ago. He is the central figure of American political life. In Emerson’s hypothetical 2028 ballot, 46 percent of Republican presidential primary voters supported Vance. The next highest candidate was also a prominent member of the Trump administration, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who received 12 percent support. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was next with 9 percent, and Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. received 5 percent support. Roughly 11 percent supported other candidates, while 17 percent of respondents said they were undecided. Emerson had also conducted the poll in November (post-election). Then, 51 percent of respondents said they were undecided, and Vance received 30 percent support. DeSantis had the next highest support, with only 5 percent. Since November, Vance has remained Trump’s heir apparent and continued to grow support. On the other hand, Emerson’s June poll found that the future of Democratic Party leadership is in disarray, showing no clear frontrunner. The highest response was undecided at 23 percent. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg had 16 percent support, followed by former Vice President Kamala Harris at 13 percent and California Gov. Gavin Newsom at 12 percent. Eight other candidates ranged between 2 to 7 percent. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro each received 7 percent support, while Sen. Bernie Sanders received 5 percent. The poll represented a major shift from last November’s poll, in which Harris had 37 percent support and a clear lead over other Democrats despite her decisive loss in the 2024 election. The next candidate, Newsom, was 30 points behind at 7 percent support, followed by Buttigieg with only 4 percent support. READ MORE from Jonah Apel: RFK Jr. Shows Why America Needs the MAHA Agenda Five Key Takeaways From Pew Report on Trump’s Reelection What C. S. Lewis Can Tell Us About New IVF Eugenics Technology The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.