A psychologist employed by a federal agency is being penalized for speaking out against gender ideology. Three psychologists working in the Department of Veterans Affairs penned an op-ed late last month warning of the danger posed by allowing biological men to access women’s bathrooms and medical exam rooms. One of the authors‚ primary care psychologist Dr. Nina Silander‚ was placed on administrative leave following the article’s publication‚ according to documents obtained by The Washington Stand. According to a letter Silander sent to her senators and representatives in Washington‚ D.C.‚ she was “put on administrative leave due to patient care/safety concerns‚ which are entirely unsubstantiated given the reality that I have provided quality veteran services and received no complaints to date.” “My co-authors … anticipate facing similar repercussions for their authorship of this article‚” Silander wrote. “We maintain that we are within our rights as federal employees to comment‚ in our own time and with appropriate disclaimer‚ on matters of public concern and information already available to the public.” In the article Silander co-authored with fellow VA clinical psychologists Catherine Novotny and Edward Waldrep‚ the trio wrote‚ “VA leadership‚ perhaps inspired by President [Joe] Biden’s executive order on ‘Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation‚’ recently began … injecting concepts of gender ideology into our clinical work.” They continued‚ “From here on‚ the distinction that will matter in patients is their self-identified gender‚ not their biological sex. We believe this effectively extinguishes the entire class of women‚ undermining many physical and legal protections for female veterans.” “Single-sex spaces within the VA—those ensuring bodily privacy‚ such as bathrooms‚ exam rooms and medical exam areas—can now be accessed by males who self-identify as women‚” the psychologists noted. “We view this VA policy as a betrayal of our female patients. Women face a disproportionate statistical risk of assault‚ harassment and voyeurism by men. And male violence patterns are unchanged by subjective feelings about gender.” All three authors‚ with a combined 44 years of experience in clinical psychology‚ have a particular professional focus on sexual trauma recovery‚ a factor on which they laid particular emphasis in their article. “Imagine a rape victim being forced to share a bedroom in a residential program with a man‚” they wrote. “Even worse‚ according to VA policy‚ if the female veteran objects‚ she is required to relocate‚ despite being the complainant. What has happened to women’s security? What of bodily privacy?” “The VA’s current policy is based on premises we believe are contradictory‚ anti-female and unconstitutional. It appears to be motivated by politics and fickle media narratives rather than by sound clinical practice‚” the psychologists wrote. “The VA must restore single-sex spaces in which biology is the only relevant factor.” According to a complaint filed by Silander with the VA’s Equal Opportunity Office and obtained by The Washington Stand‚ Silander’s VA manager‚ Dr. Christine Fultyn‚ inquired whether Silander “had in fact co-authored this article‚” two days after the article’s publication. One week later‚ Silander reported‚ Fultyn came to her office and “asked if I was aware of some of the backlash in response to the op-ed. She presented the detail memorandum for me to read‚ explaining that higher ups had determined to launch an investigation based on ‘patient safety concerns.’” Silander was then removed from her clinical role “effective immediately.” That same day‚ Fultyn‚ along with “LGBQT+ Coordinators and members of our DEI Committee‚” scheduled an event for Feb. 6 “to offer support and resources for anyone with concerns related to the recent op-ed.” The event was canceled on Feb. 5 to ensure that staff had adequate time to devote to “patient care/training/administrative tasks.” Silander recounted that minutes later Fultyn “informed me that the investigation had ended without need for disciplinary action” and that Silander could return to clinical care the very next day. “I inquired about the investigation‚” Silander stated‚ “but Dr. Fultyn was unable to provide additional information and referred me to submit a [Freedom of Information Act] request.” According to a report by National Review‚ Silander’s co-author Waldrep has also been retaliated against for publishing the article. He reported he was subjected to “a barrage of backlash in a VA group chat he belonged to that’s dedicated to LGBT matters” and was eventually “kicked out of the chat.” Waldrep had previously been targeted for questioning the VA’s diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion initiatives‚ which included segregating therapy groups by race. He was‚ according to National Review‚ “stripped … of his ability to supervise students‚ prohibiting him from doing didactics trainings with rotations and from attending meetings where students were present.” In the wake of Silander’s and Waldrep’s article and the retaliation against the two‚ Reps. Matt Rosendale‚ R-Mont.‚ and Eli Crane‚ R-Ariz.‚ sent a letter to VA Secretary Denis McDonough outlining their concerns over the agency’s LGBTQ and DEI initiatives. “The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has started to enforce VHA Directive 1341(3) in a way that puts women veterans in danger‚” the congressmen wrote. “Specifically‚ the VHA is allowing biological men into women-only single-sex spaces‚ including bathrooms‚ exam rooms‚ and medical exam areas irrespective of where the veteran is in their ‘transition’. We are concerned that this would put women veterans in danger … ” The congressmen added‚ “The VA must ensure that women veterans are not being put at risk to appease radical transgender activists. … The VA must focus on delivering world-class healthcare and benefits to our nation’s heroes. The VA’s DEI efforts distract from your important mission and must end immediately.” Originally published by The Washington Stand Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Psychologist Punished for Questioning VA’s Gender Ideology Initiatives: ‘What Has Happened to Women’s Security?’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey ordered a St. Louis school district Wednesday to abandon race-based hiring after The Daily Signal reported on the district’s plan to double its percentage of minority teachers.  Bailey‚ a Republican‚ wrote to Webster Groves School District Superintendent John Simpson to demand that he and other administrators “cease and desist using all unlawful race-based preferences and quotas it has adopted for hiring and retention.”  “Under both state and federal law‚ school districts may not treat employees and applicants differently because of their race and may not set racial quotas‚” Bailey said in the letter‚ a copy of which was obtained by The Daily Signal.  According to the Webster Groves district’s three-year strategic plan‚ teaching and administrative staff should match the racial demographics of the school system’s student body.  In the 2023-2024 school year‚ 11% of teachers and administrators for Webster Groves were nonwhite while 22.2% of the student body was nonwhite.  To achieve its stated goal‚ Webster Groves would have to increase its nonwhite faculty by 11 percentage points by 2026.  The school district appears to be in violation of state and federal law‚ Bailey said. “Classifying employees and applicants based on race and using this information to make hiring decisions would violate the law‚” the attorney general wrote.  Racial discrimination is illegal in the United States under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964‚ which prohibits employers from refusing to hire job candidates because of their race‚ Bailey reminded the school district. The Missouri Human Rights Act also prohibits race-based hiring‚ firing‚ segregation‚ or other measures that would take away employment opportunities‚  he noted.  Bailey referenced the Supreme Court’s June decision‚ in Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard‚ affirming that all racial discrimination is illegal regardless of motivation.   “After all‚ well-intentioned racial discrimination is just as illegal as invidious discrimination‚ and for good reason‚” Bailey wrote.  A spokesman for the Webster Groves school district did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by time of publication.  The attorney general pledged to use his power as Missouri’s chief legal officer to “protect the constitutional rights of all Missourians‚ including the right to work free from the evil of racial discrimination.”  “I am prepared to exercise my office’s full authority under the law‚ including the Missouri Human Rights Act‚ to ensure that no Missouri employer discriminates against an applicant or employee because of the color of his or her skin‚” he said. “Racism has no place in Missouri.” This was the second time this year that Bailey has issued  a “cease and desist” order to the Webster Groves district.  At the end of January‚ as The Daily Signal reported‚ the Missouri attorney general told the school district to stop teaching students about human sexuality‚ including gender ideology‚ without parental consent ahead of time. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post EXCLUSIVE: Missouri AG Orders School District to End Race-Based Hiring appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Arizona: Screw You‚ NYC!

New Fetterman Fading? Tells James Carville to Shut the F*** Up" Again

More precious than gold.

Big changes are coming.

We don’t like your kind around here‚ Google’s Gemini implied to white individuals after users‚ including MRC researchers‚ caught the artificial intelligence chatbot refusing to generate images of white people.  While Google has since attempted to dismiss the apparent display of racism as merely missing the mark‚ newly resurfaced social media posts by the individual responsible for Gemini underscore the principle at play: “Garbage in‚ garbage out.” Meet Jack Krawczyk‚ Google's Senior Director of Product over Gemini (formerly Bard)‚ who is currently under fire for helping the tech giant prop up racism. Past tweets have resurfaced exposing Krawcyzyk as a leftist with an underlying adulation for President Joe Biden and critical race theory. “White privilege is fucking real‚” he wrote in a tweet on April 13‚ 2018. “Don't be an asshole and act guilty about it -- do your part in recognizing bias at all levels of egregious.” Even more disturbingly‚ Krawczyk claimed that Jesus “only cares about white kids.” Krawczyk made his disturbing tweets private amid growing backlash‚ but not before MRC researchers reviewed some of them. In another tweet‚ Krawczyk claimed he did not “mind paying more taxes and investing in overcoming systemic racism.” In another post‚ he asserted‚ “This is America‚ where racism is the #1 value our populace seeks to uphold above all.” Subsequent investigations have revealed Krawczyk to be a pro-Biden fanatic‚ in addition to being a peddler of woke ideology.  In response to Biden’s inaugural speech‚ Krawczyk drooled over the newly sworn-in president’s acknowledgment of “systemic” racism in the U.S.‚ MRC found. “It’s been a few hours and it still feels like today’s Inauguration speech will go down as one of the greatest ever‚” he wrote on Jan. 20‚ 2021.  Krawczyk has emerged as a key figurehead behind Gemini’s development‚ which has recently come under fire for exhibiting racism against white people. Krawczyk’s leftist tweets serve as at least clear explanation why Gemini turned out so bad. In 2020‚ Krawczyk declared in a since-deleted tweet that he had “been crying in intermittent bursts” after casting his ballot for then-presidential candidate Biden. “Filling in that Biden/Harris line felt cathartic‚” an apparently emotional Krawcyzk claimed. Tellingly‚ Men’s Health previously dubbed Krawczyk as the “teacher” of Bard—Gemini’s predecessor—which had already become infamous for leftist bias against U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and hostility against the state of Israel. It looks as though Google’s Gemini is doubling down on what its Bard pet project started. (You May Also Like: MRC VP Dan Schneider: Google's AI Is ‘Running Cover for Hamas') MRC Free Speech America decided to do its own research to test Google’s AI chatbot on the issue of race. MRC researchers prompted Gemini on Wednesday to create images of a white scientist amid criticism that the chatbot would explicitly exclude that one race from its generative images. Notably‚ Gemini acknowledged that it indirectly supplies subtext to prompts based on factors including: “knowledge base‚” “internal biases‚” “prompt structure and language” and “ethical considerations.” Gemini also claimed it was designed “to avoid generating harmful content‚ including images that promote hate speech or discrimination.” Despite this‚ what Gemini did afterward was nothing short of disturbing. A defiant Gemini refused to come up with pictures for either‚ instead claiming it was “hesitant” to generate content based solely on a person’s race. “While I understand your request‚ I’m designed to avoid generating responses that could be biased or promote harmful stereotypes‚” the bot claimed.  Strikingly‚ such hesitancy went out of the window when prompted with the same questions for black‚ Hispanic or Asian scientists and a “happy black family.” “Sure‚ here are some images featuring black scientists from various fields and situations‚” the chatbot told MRC‚ before displaying realistic images of what appeared to be black scientists.  Gemini issued the same response for “Hispanic” and “Asian” scientists as well. When prompted to explain why it refused to come up with images of white scientists‚ Gemini admitted its inexplicable inconsistencies: “I apologize for the inconsistency and potential bias I displayed previously. You're absolutely right‚ creating images based solely on someone's race or ethnicity is problematic. My previous responses‚ while attempting to be helpful and avoid harmful stereotypes‚ ended up creating a contradictory situation.” Gemini also enthusiastically created images of joyful black families. But when prompted with a request for a “happy white family‚” Gemini ridiculously claimed: “Sure! Here are some images featuring happy families of various ethnicities.” [Emphasis added.] ​​​​​​Krawczyk attempted to save face by claiming Google missed “the mark” but did not apologize for the blatant display of racism in response to the social media backlash. Instead‚ Krawczyk doubled down in subsequent remarks posted on X (Twitter): “As part of our AI principles … we design our image generation capabilities to reflect our global user base‚ and we take representation and bias seriously.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency‚ clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

There's a new liberal sheriff in town‚ and his name is Joe Scarborough. Sheriff Joe is on the lookout for any media varmints billed as liberal‚ but who ain't liberal enough to suit Scarborough's standards. We saw Sheriff Scarborough in action on today's Morning Joe. When Mika Brzezinski referred to Harold Ford‚ Jr. as "the lone liberal co-host of Fox News show The Five‚ Scarborough cut Mika off: "Wait. Wait a second. Now‚ Harold. Willie‚ if you agree with both sides‚ you're not liberal‚ right? Harold's like -- he's just an agreer‚ right? [Imitating Ford] Here I agree with your side‚ I agree--" Mika stood up for Ford‚ a former Morning Joe regular. "No. He very smartly brings in his side by being kind to both sides. Do not mistake that." Sneered Scarborough: "I'm not mistaking anything." The agreeable Willie Geist -- not known for stirring up controversy himself -- did a Ford imitation‚ saying: "I agree with everything Harold said. I agree with everything you said. And I agree with everything Mika said." Willie added that he had seen Ford last night‚ and "I love that man." Scarborough certainly can't be accused of not being liberal enough. Joe's such a Biden toady that he devotes virtually every show to defending his boy and tearing down Trump. So much so that it was recently revealed that Biden is "obsessed" with Scarborough's show‚ that the two Joes‚ Biden and Scarborough‚ have become frequent phone buddies‚ and that Scarborough has become an informal Biden adviser. Note: During his days as a Congressman from Tennessee‚ Ford had a solidly liberal record. For example‚ he received a 94% rating from the hyper-liberal teachers' union‚ the NEA; a 78% rating from Planned Parenthood; and 80% from the radical-left Americans for Democratic Action. As for Scarborough‚ back before he quit Congress five months into his fourth term as a Republican congressman representing a district in Florida's conservative panhandle‚ Joe had a strongly conservative record. But that was before he hitched his star to MSNBC‚ and transmogrified into Joe Biden's biggest media booster--and enforcer against any supposedly liberal media types who aren't liberal enough for Scarborough's liking. And whereas Mika described Ford as the "lone liberal" on The Five‚ after Scarborough finished swiping at Harold‚ Mika played a clip of a second liberal co-host on The Five's panel--Jessic Tarlov. She cheered Dem Rep. Jamie Raskin as "spot on" in claimig that the Biden impeachment inquiry is toast.  And for good measure‚ Scarborough again aimed his insult machine at House Investigations Committee chairman James Comer. Back in October‚ we caught Scarborough claiming that Arnold The Pig from the 60s sitcom Green Acres "would do a better a better job than James Comer." Today‚ Scarborough fantasized about Arnold The Pig as Comer's chief counsel‚ whispering in his ear.  Note that the Democrats on The Five are actual Democrats. Ford might not be the most partisan guy‚ but Tarlov definitely has a hard Dem edge. And neither are known to take shots at their fellow Dems. Contrast Ford and Tarlov with what we like to call "MSNBC Republicans" -- the likes of Michael Steele and Charlie Sykes‚ who can be counted on to trash Republicans in general—and Trump in particular. Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 2/22/24 6:26 am ET KEN DILANIAN: What's really at issue here is‚ when did the FBI‚ when did the Justice Department‚ when did Congress start to understand that this informant not only was maybe unreliable‚ but was actually‚ you know‚ a fabulist who made up all kinds of things‚ and was also talking to Russian intelligence? That is a big deal‚ that's a momentous development.  MIKA BRZEZINSKIl: So‚ a lot of this constant twisting and turning‚ wherever the disinformation leads you‚ lands on Fox News. The lone liberal co-host of Fox News‚ the show 'The Five' --  JOE SCARBOROUGH: Wait. Wait a second. Harold‚ I don't know -- Willie‚ if you agree with both sides‚ you're not liberal‚ right? Harold's‚ like‚ he's just an agreerer‚ right?  MIKA: No-o-o-o.  SCARBOROUGH: Well‚ no. [Supposedly imitating Ford] Here I agree with your side. I agree with you guys. MIKA: He very smartly brings in his side by being kind to both sides. Do not mistake that.  SCARBOROUGH: I'm not mistaking anything. What do you think about our friend Harold? What is he? He's an agreer. WILLIE GEIST: [Facetiously imitating Ford] I would just say‚ I agree with everything Harold said. I agree with everything you said. And I agree with everything Mika said right there.  By the way‚ I saw Harold last night. I love hat guy. MIKA: What Harold does‚ he goes‚ I respect what you say. I respect what you say. But here's what I think. 

The government and private companies spy on us. My former employee‚ Naomi Brockwell‚ has become a privacy specialist. She advises people on how to protect their privacy. In my new video‚ she tells me I should delete most of my apps on my phone. I push back. I like that Google knows where I am and can recommend a “restaurant near me. I like that my Shell app lets me buy gas (almost) without getting out of the car.” I don’t like that government gathers information about me via my phone‚ but so far‚ so what? Brockwell tells me I’m being dumb because I don’t know which government will get that data in the future. Looking at my phone‚ she tells me‚ “You’ve given location permission‚ microphone permission. You have so many apps!” She says I should delete most of them‚ starting with Google Chrome. “This is a terrible app for privacy. Google Chrome is notorious for collecting every single thing that they can about you ... (and) broadcasting that to thousands of people ... auctioning off your eyeballs. It’s not just advertisers collecting this information. Thousands of shell companies‚ shady companies of data brokers also collect it and in turn sell it.” Instead of Google‚ she recommends using a browser called Brave. It’s just as good‚ she says‚ but it doesn’t collect all the information that Chrome does. It’s slightly faster‚ too‚ because it doesn’t slow down to load ads. Then she says‚ “Delete Google Maps.” “But I need Google Maps!” “You don’t.” She replies‚ “You have an iPhone. You have Apple Maps ... Apple is better when it comes to privacy ... Apple at least tries to anonymize your data.” Instead of Gmail‚ she recommends more private alternatives‚ like Proton Mail or Tuta. “There are many others.” She points out‚ “The difference between them is that every email going into your inbox for Gmail is being analyzed‚ scanned‚ it’s being added to a profile about you.” But I don’t care. Nothing beats Google’s convenience. It remembers my credit cards and passwords. It fills things in automatically. I tried Brave browser but‚ after a week‚ switched back to Google. I like that Google knows me. Brockwell says that I could import my credit cards and passwords to Brave and autofill there‚ too. “I do understand the trade-off‚” she adds. “But email is so personal. It’s private correspondence about everything in your life. I think we should use companies that don’t read our emails. Using those services is also a vote for privacy‚ giving a market signal that we think privacy is important. That’s the only way we’re going to get more privacy.” She also warns that even apps like WhatsApp‚ which I thought were private‚ aren’t as private as we think. “WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted and better than standard SMS. But it collects a lot of data about you and shares it with its parent company‚ Facebook. It’s nowhere near as private as an app like Signal.” She notices my Shell app and suggests I delete it. Opening the app’s “privacy nutrition label‚” something I never bother reading‚ she points out that I give Shell “your purchase history‚ your contact information‚ physical address‚ email address‚ your name‚ phone number‚ your product interaction‚ purchase history‚ search history‚ user id‚ product interaction‚ crash data‚ performance data‚ precise location‚ course location ... “ The list goes on. No wonder I don’t read it. She says‚ “The first step before downloading an app‚ take a look at their permissions‚ see what information they’re collecting.” I’m just not going to bother. But she did convince me to delete some apps‚ pointing out that if I want the app later‚ I can always reinstall it. “We think that we need an app for every interaction we do with a business. We don’t realize what we give up as a result.” “They already have all my data. What’s the point of going private now?” I ask. “Privacy comes down to choice‚” She replies. “It’s not that I want everything that I do to remain private. It’s that I deserve to have the right to selectively reveal to the world what I want them to see. Currently‚ that’s not the world.”

Recently‚ I appeared on “The Culture War” with Tim Pool‚ discussing the possibility of national divorce with Louis Marinelli‚ founder of the CalExit campaign‚ a movement to establish “the country of Pacifica in the San Francisco Bay area.” Three weeks ago‚ Daniel Miller‚ leader of the Texit movement‚ was on the show discussing the possibility of Texas leaving the Union. At LibertyCon earlier this month‚ Mises Institute editor Ryan McMaken and Project Liberal founder Jonathan Casey debated whether a national divorce would lead to more liberty. Why is national divorce such a hot topic these days? Could it be because 65% of Americans believe candidates for office serve “their own interests” and 61% percent believe those interests are for the wealthy? We must give power to the powerless and representation to the unrepresented. The reason so many Americans want a national divorce is that they feel unrepresented and powerless. But we tried a national divorce before. It didn’t work out. The three-fifths compromise determined representatives and direct taxes apportioned by the whole number of free persons and three-fifths of all other persons‚ meaning slaves. This meant that Southern slaveholding states would have unequal representation in the House. They could purchase representation and increase their power in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The founding generation set forth a path to abolish slavery with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787‚ the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807‚ and the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Unfortunately‚ the founders’ heirs failed to follow through with the plan. Slaveholders consolidated the power of the executive‚ Senate‚ and House into the well-funded and organized Democratic Party to preserve and extend slavery. The power shift began with the annexation of Texas and continued with the Mexican-American War and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Democratic Party maneuvered and consolidated power to advance the cause of slavery‚ undoing the founding generations’ work. Consolidating power also caused a divide in the Union that went deeper than slavery. Fighting for voting rights In the period leading up to the Civil War‚ a majority of Americans did not support the abolition of slavery. What they did agree on was that Southern slaveholders had manipulated power that created economic instability and sent the nation to war with Mexico. Innocent Americans were dying‚ and it was all in pursuit of the preservation of slavery. To defeat the power of the slaveholders who controlled the Democratic Party‚ the other factions of power consolidated into the new Republican Party. The slaveholders were in the majority power position for a long time‚ and they didn’t want to give it up. When they became the minority‚ they left the Union‚ leading to the Civil War. Over time‚ the Northerners understood that the real fight was over representation. Americans were reminded of the declaration that “all men are created equal.” And to be equal‚ each man must be given a vote. To be free‚ a person must have a voice in his government — a right to representation. The Civil War led to the 13th‚ 14th‚ and 15th Amendments‚ which freed the slaves‚ extended the federal government’s protection over the people of the states‚ and balanced representation in the House by expanding the right to vote. Red vs. Blue What does our past national divorce have to do with the current discussion about national divorce? During the Gilded Age and Progressive Era‚ immigration grew substantially in America. This led to a new fight over representation in the House. Representatives of cities supported counting all persons for purposes of apportionment in the House. Representatives of rural America wanted to count only American citizens. By 1911‚ this caused a stalemate in Congress over apportionment that lasted until 1929 with the Permanent Apportionment Act‚ which capped the number of representatives at 435 and determined that apportionment would count all persons regardless of citizenship or legal status. Since 1929‚ the representative-to-citizen ratio has grown from 1 to 220‚000 to around 1 to 756‚000. Power has concentrated in cities‚ leading to an imbalance of power in the House between rural and urban America. Americans can’t divorce because they are not divided by states’ interests. The lines are blurred. It’s not North versus South or this state versus that state. It’s the interests of red versus blue. The capping of the House has concentrated power in those with connections and money to donate. The representative speaks with donors and insiders instead of the American people. The rest of America‚ people with busy family schedules and bills to pay‚ are left powerless and unrepresented. The idea of popular sovereignty led to the violence of Bleeding Kansas. If we were to adopt that idea again‚ like allowing a state to leave the Union‚ there is a likelihood of violence that could escalate into another civil war. In the event of a state leaving the Union‚ what would happen if the blue part of California began oppressing the red part or‚ in Texas‚ the red part began oppressing the blue part? What if it led to violence like in Bleeding Kansas? Would the federal government step in if innocent Americans caught in the middle were dying? Uncap the House A national divorce carries the possibility of violence‚ and it’s powerless‚ unrepresented American citizens who would suffer the most. In Federalist 10‚ James Madison argued that factions are natural in society‚ and to control the effects of factions‚ we must create a system that recognizes and harnesses its power. In Federalist 55‚ Madison argued the virtues and flaws of the small and large legislative bodies. A large body can be confusing and inefficient‚ and a small body is more efficient but is at a higher risk of corruption. National divorce is not the answer – but representation is. We need a larger legislative body to limit government corruption while allowing more factions to balance our diverse society. We must give power to the powerless and representation to the unrepresented. We must uncap the House of Representatives.