He isn’t relevant anymore, as he’s gone from CNN’s White House correspondent and primetime host to a Substack blogger over the past six months, but Jim Acosta still managed to irritate a large number of Americans by casting folks in rural flyover territory as mindless rubes hoodwinked by the Trumpian far-right: Former CNN host Jim Acosta claimed on Tuesday that farmers are being “led astray” and voting for “far-right” candidates in U.S. elections. Acosta stated during a Center For American Progress discussion that the “far-right” has figured out how to “infiltrate the heartland” and get farmers to side with the political right. While name dropping the late conservative host Rush Limbaugh, Acosta argued that many Americans are not getting their information from reliable news. “The far-right in this country has kind of figured out a way to infiltrate the heartland and to basically to pull Ma and Pa from the farm to their point of view,” Acosta said. “And as it turns out, a lot of these folks vote in these elections and a lot of those folks have been completely led astray. I hate to say it, but they’ve just been completely led astray. And we’ve all just let this happen on our watch with essentially a business model for delivering the news in this country that just does not work anymore.” If you’re in search of a boost to your blood pressure, here’s video of Acosta’s speech: The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Nicole Silverio gave a few recent highlights displaying Acosta’s qualifications to complain about the rubes being led astray: Acosta recently told Democrat Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett on May 29 that he is worried Trump might arrest her. He complained that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were arresting illegal immigrant criminals, and argued that if it can be done to them, then it can happen to a member of Congress. The former CNN host appeared to agree with former Biden 2020 campaign ad writer Cliff Schechter that the Democrats do not spend enough time calling Trump a “fascist” during an April 25 segment of “The Jim Acosta Show.” In 2020, Acosta dismissed reports about Hunter Biden’s laptop by calling the story “just more fake news.” He further accused Trump of being “obsessed with Joe Biden’s son.” During his time as CNN’s White House correspondent, Acosta got his hard pass suspended from the White House during Trump’s first term after he refused to give up his microphone to an intern, though a judge later ruled that his pass be returned. Acosta is the perfect embodiment of Fake News, of course. Here’s someone who was promoted to a position of prominence at CNN, which was in the process of making itself utterly devoid of credibility as a news organ, and Acosta spent several years in that position spewing one sanctimonious idiocy after another. Remember this? #BREAKING: Jim Acosta makes it official, rage-quitting CNN after 18 years at the network, telling viewers to not “give into the lies” and “it is never a good time to bow down to a tyrant”…. “And I just wanted to end today’s show by thanking all of the wonderful people who work… pic.twitter.com/7Zlwrrbwwl — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 Here’s somebody who equated Donald Trump to Raul Castro, and he thinks it’s terrible that rural America isn’t persuaded by the talking heads on CNN. Even after he found himself deposed from CNN’s airwaves, Acosta doesn’t seem to have learned much. Here’s what else he said on Tuesday: “I’ve been sort of trying to shout this from the rooftops or wherever anybody will listen to me,” Acosta said. “At the end of a bar in Kansas City, whatever. The President of the United States is a danger to this country. Full stop.” “Even people in the Republican Party were afraid to show up at his birthday parade, the dictator Kim Jong Un birthday parade that he tried to have over the weekend where you saw the video of the tank going by the empty stands and you heard the squeaking of the tracks of the tank,” Acosta said. “And it was sort of like, what is this?” But as obnoxious as that is, it can’t really catch up to this: Proving CNN was right to fire him, Jim Acosta shamelessly insults Trump’s deceased ex-wife Ivana Trump “How many immigrants has he married? He’s got one buried at his golf course in New Jersey!”pic.twitter.com/phr3Wuzeu5 — MRC NewsBusters (@newsbusters) June 18, 2025 You’ve probably heard that CNN’s parent company, Time Warner Discovery, is jettisoning the “news” network, along with a collection of other cable channels nobody watches, into a spinoff company they’re calling “Global Networks,” or something. That’s destined to become a penny-stock outfit, and in preparation for the move, there are lots of reports that the higher-priced “talent” still left at CNN — including the $18 million Anderson Cooper, who costs CNN something like $27 per viewer based on his average audience — is getting packed off to the glue factory. Acosta is right that the mass media business model that made him rich and “elite” is broken. What he doesn’t understand is he’s one of the people who broke it. Half the country doesn’t like Trump, but the only people in that group becoming emotional wrecks over the president are generally CNN or MSNBC viewers. The vast majority of the country gave up on legacy corporate media outlets who push the narratives Jim Acosta pushes years ago. And yeah — when nobody cares about your style of news reporting, which pretends to be objective but clearly is not, and even worse tends to be clearly wrong on subject after subject, your ratings eventually collapse and so do the fat contracts for the Jim Acostas of the world. Boo hoo. I post all this to gloat over Acosta’s decline, sure, but also to enforce the point that the so-called media elite is finished — and they’re admitting it. And to bring back up something I’ve been talking about a lot since the election last November — namely, that we have passed from the political era that began with the 1932 elections and the dominant New Deal/Great Society Democrat consensus that mass media relentlessly enforced to something new. Acosta is part of that era. He claims some 300,000 subscribers to his Substack, which is a series of interminable, droning Zoom-call podcasts — the latest one is a 55-minute gripe-fest about the supposed birthday party Trump threw himself (in Non-Acosta World, it’s described as the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary celebration), starring such luminaries as Keith Ellison and Don Lemon. When I looked at it, the video had all of 1,876 likes, which is a healthy number for a mid-range podcaster. Probably not the kind of number that pays Acosta’s bills, though. Good luck with that venture, Jim. Rural Americans haven’t been persuaded by leftist propaganda from the Jim Acostas of the world in 20 years. It isn’t because they’ve been flim-flammed by the MAGA movement. Most of what MAGA espouses are things rural Americans have demanded for the entirety of this century. Acosta has it backwards. But of course he does. Of course he does. And the bitter irrelevance of Acosta and his ilk, the corporate-made famous “news” names who fed off preexisting audiences and now feed off their severance packages, produce little more than smirks from those of us celebrating the end of the corrupt system that produced them. READ MORE by Scott McKay: Basic Thoughts on Iran Five Quick Things: The Walmart Heirs Turn on America The post Jim Acosta’s Shame Deficiency Matches His Irrelevance appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

As if to remind the public of the irony and self-deprecation of modern feminism, Sabrina  Carpenter released the cover art for her upcoming album, Man’s Best Friend. The art depicts a suggestive image of the star so shocking and reviling that even feminists on X have attacked her. The image not only sexually degrades Carpenter, but it also compares women to animals, which the album title suggests is the theme of her new work. Carpenter’s feminist critics accuse her of promulgating misogyny by appealing to the “male gaze” with the explicit photo. Their biggest qualm with her new cover is its insensitivity to the current political and cultural climate.  Presumably, feminists are referencing the Trump administration and rise in traditional conservatism. They believe that now is the wrong time to even satirically joke about pleasing men or comparing women to animals. However, the radical feminist critics fail to admit that feminism, followed to its logical conclusions, was always going to degrade women this way. Only now that feminism has reached shocking heights (especially while Trump is in office) are some women trying to step backward. At the same time, many liberal feminists are willing to accept these shocking photo ops as the consequence of their feminist worldview. They defend their star, arguing that Carpenter deserves “autonomy over her sexuality” and that feminism demands she be allowed to express herself in any way she sees fit. If men treat women like dogs, they argue, why shouldn’t Carpenter be allowed to call this out as explicitly as she wants to? Carpenter’s History  Carpenter is no stranger to explicit content, even though her audience is composed largely of young girls. Carpenter’s most popular moments are not her quiet love songs, but rather her raunchy dance moves and mimed sex acts, performed regardless of whose young daughter may be watching. Even before the Man’s Best Friend controversy, Sabrina was criticized for her explicit performances. The singer found this ironic.  In an interview with Rolling Stone, Carpenter points out this simple fact. “It’s always so funny to me when people complain… like, ‘All she does is sing about this,” said the pop star. “But those are the songs that you’ve made popular. Clearly you love sex. You’re obsessed with it. … There’s so many more moments than the ‘Juno’ positions, but those are the ones you post every night and comment on.” Carpenter is inarguably right. The star is pursuing the same kind of fame and pulling the same stunts as many female pop icons before her. A sex “obsessed” culture, as Carpenter phrased it, is nothing new.  Not only is her behavior cliche, it is also upheld by fans who make Sabrina’s most raunchy moments viral. Carpenter knows her audience, and she caters to the culture. The same mothers who cover their daughters’ eyes during the most explicit parts of her shows keep their own eyes wide open to consume the over-sexualized performance. The Vicious Cycle of Modern Feminism Despite a culture that encourages Carpenter’s actions, she is by no means innocent in this controversy. The star herself is just as much a promoter of feminism as she is its victim. She has been encouraged to throw dignity away in pursuit of sexual “freedom,” and her example encourages her audience to do the same.  Though feminists are choosing this cultural moment to fight back against Sabrina’s dehumanizing actions, they have previously set her up as the perfect role model and feminist icon. Feminists have pushed for women to sell their bodies to and reject the children of their relationships with men. These feminists have no grounds on which to criticize celebrities that exercise these “freedoms” publicly.   Instead of pushing dangerous narratives onto young women and then stepping back in shock when disaster ensues, it is time to give them good role models who demonstrate how to build up their confidence and character without the lies sold to them by modern feminism.  Madison Fossa is an editorial  intern at The American Spectator and a student at Grove City College. READ MORE by Madison Fossa: ‘A Clean Sweep’: RFK Jr. Fires 17 Members of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices Former Biden Aide Karine Jean-Pierre Is Now Independent Choosing the ‘Right Republican’: Interview With New Jersey Gubernatorial Candidate Bill Spadea The post Man’s Best Friend, or Women’s Worst Enemy: The Downfall of Sabrina Carpenter appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Two major food companies will begin removing artificial dyes from their products, as per the recommendations made by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration in April.  The order by FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and HHS Secretary RFK Jr. seeks the removal of eight synthetic, petroleum-based dyes, which have unknown health impacts. Kraft Heinz and General Mills have now announced that they will comply with the plans.  Emily Hilliard, press secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services, reiterated RFK Jr.’s message, telling The American Spectator that the voluntary step by the food companies “proves that when the government sets clear, science-based standards, the food industry listens and acts.” Targeted coloring ingredients include Citrus Red No. 2, Orange B, Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, and Blue No. 2. Kraft Heinz announced that the company will phase out any use of petroleum-based dyes in its food products, and will immediately end the release of any such food products into the U.S. The company stated in a press release that 90 percent of its U.S. products are already free of harmful food, drug, and cosmetic colorations. When asked about the company’s pledge to ensure healthful products, a Kraft Heinz spokesperson told The American Spectator, “We are using a three-pronged approach for this initiative: Removing, Replacing, or Reinventing. For most products, we can replace with natural colors.”  The spokesperson also addressed the logistics process, stating, “We will reinvent or reimagine the consumer experience, such as by replacing certain blues and greens with other natural colors.” The food giant is the fifth-largest in the world, and its cooperation with HHS recommendations signals a massive win for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again movement.  General Mills has also agreed to remove the petrochemical ingredients, following an investigation into potentially deceptive advertising. The investigation, initiated by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, aimed to examine the food company’s marketing of products as healthy, despite containing potentially dangerous ingredients outlined in the HHS recommendation.  In 2015, General Mills committed to removing harmful dyes, but it shortly after resumed production of the artificial coloring ingredients.  Following General Mills’ announcement of the ingredient removal, Paxton stated, “General Mills removing these toxic artificial dyes is an incredible win for the health of our children and all Americans. I look forward to finalizing an agreement with General Mills to ensure that this promise is kept.” Texas AG Paxton is also investigating Kellogg’s on similar allegations of deceptive marketing.  Secretary Kennedy stated in April, “These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children’s health and development,” adding that rebuilding public trust in health services starts with removing “toxic dyes out of the foods our families eat every day.” FDA Commissioner Marty Makary also noted that restrictions on the harmful dyes have already been put in place in Europe and Canada, and that doing so is essential “to safeguard the health of our children.” Actions by the FDA to remove the harmful chemicals include revoking FDA authorization of the targeted dyes, authorizing new, natural coloration alternatives, and partnering with the National Institutes of Health to further explore the harmful effects of the petrochemical dyes.  READ MORE by Andrew Gondy: Here’s What American Tourists Are Experiencing in Israel The Irony and Absurdity of ‘Stolen Land’ Virtue Signaling CBO Finds That Taxpayers Footed Massive Costs of Illegal Immigration Under Biden The post HHS Scores Victory as Food Giants Begin Phasing Out Synthetic Dyes appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Ronald Reagan’s infamous line that “nothing lasts longer than a temporary government program” wasn’t so much a clever quip as a matter-of-fact observation. Once government creates a bureaucracy, there really is no rolling it back. But I’ll build on that point: Nothing lasts longer than a temporary benefit provided to government workers. Any special new benefit or accommodation immediately becomes etched in stone and workers’ unions will fight to maintain it. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a memory for more than two years. It was understandable for state officials to require state workers to work — or whatever it is they do most of the time — from home while the government was imposing its unnecessarily disruptive social-distancing rules. And there’s no question that the pandemic has permanently changed the nature of our work and commutes. Research shows that only 7 percent of U.S. workers worked from home in 2019, with that number soaring to 61 percent during the pandemic. That number is down to around 35 percent these days, with many companies insisting that more of their employees show up at the office. Increasingly, U.S. companies — especially those in white-collar industries — have adopted some form of hybrid work schedule, where employees mix up their schedules between home and office. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that initial productivity dropped during the pandemic orders — but that over time “most of the industries that experienced substantial increases in the percentage of remote workers were able to enhance output during this time without a corresponding increase in labor.” Companies can also realize significant cost savings, by reducing the rent and utilities they need to pay to house armies of workers. In a market system, you show up to work if your employer requires it — or stay at home if that’s part of the deal. If you don’t like the terms and conditions, you can seek employment elsewhere. Currently, California’s state workers are upset that their ultimate boss, Gov. Gavin Newsom, has required the vast majority to begin returning to their offices next month. He’s allowing a hybrid schedule, whereby they work at home one day a week. It’s a perfectly reasonable requirement, but state employees are complaining about parking costs and the hassles of commuting. They already enjoy above-average pay and pension benefits that dwarf those in the private sector — and now they are pushing back against having to do what so many private-sector workers must do, by showing up to work years after the end of the COVID orders. The Sacramento Bee reported on a protest at the Capitol by hundreds of state workers who are “fighting to continue working from home and for their paychecks.” It’s not that hard to fight for their paychecks, as they’ll continue to receive them if they do as the governor has required.  I drove past a billboard along a freeway outside downtown Sacramento declaring, “Newsom has mandated more traffic,” but I doubt many commuters will jump on their bandwagon. They’re encouraged to call the governor’s office and complain that the taxpayer-funded employees at home might suddenly have to join them on the freeways. It’s hard to see this campaign getting much traction. Unlike private-sector workers, state employees have outsized political representation. Assemblyman Josh Hoover, the Folsom Republican who represents a large share of Sacramento state workers, argued that “people working in the office already will very much notice a difference on their highways when it comes to traffic congestion.” He also pointed to the high cost of maintaining state office buildings — and that some of them can be converted to housing. Sure, but it’s easy to fire private-sector employees who are unproductive from home, It’s extremely difficult to fire a state employee. One of the few proven ways for a state union worker to get fired is to not show up for work. And now they don’t have to do that, either. I’d love to see any policies the state has implemented to provide oversight of work-at-home productivity for state workers. Once I see that, I’m open to changing my mind. Already, public-employee unions have filed their challenges. The Bee reported on a lawsuit from the California engineers union arguing that the governor failed “to meet and confer with the union over the impact of a return-to-office order on supervisors and managers.” So, the governor can unilaterally allow them to work at home, but needs union permission to send them back to work? I doubt that will fly. Another Bee report found that the California Department of Education — run by an elected state superintendent who presumably needs union support for his future political endeavors — delayed “the four-day requirement until the end of 2025.” Perhaps Superintendent Tony Thurmond reacted to department employees who “mounted a months-long campaign” to reverse the return-to-work order that included “solidarity breaks” outside the building that occasionally featured “more than 50 loud office workers.” I’ve worked from home for years and it has unquestionably increased my productivity, as I don’t have to waste time getting dressed up, sitting in traffic, and chatting around the proverbial water cooler. But such work requirements are ultimately up to my employer. State employees’ sudden concern about cost savings is charming. They probably are right that’s it’s overly costly to maintain hulking Sacramento-area office buildings. But as Matthew Fleming noted in his recent Bee column, it’s rather “silly” for them to make that case. He’d be “happy to provide many suggestions on how they can save taxpayers money if they’re so interested.” I suspect they’re not particularly interested given their lack of concern about taxpayers when they push for higher pay and benefits. Like everything in our state government, this is another case of the tail wagging the dog. State workers and their legislative allies make some reasonable points, but we know they aren’t being made after a careful examination of productivity and any pluses and minuses for the services provided to the public. It’s all about the convenience of the employees themselves. And it’s another reminder for politicians to be careful what benefits they grant to public employees even on a temporary basis — because it’s going to be a tough slog to roll them back. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. READ MORE by Steven Greenhut: Legislature Takes ‘Pro-Development’ Turn Irony Alert: California Dems Tackle ‘Cost of Living’ Erratic Trade Policies Hurt Businesses, Consumers The post California State Workers Resist Back-to-Work Orders appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Congratulations, friends. We’re back. Our enemies have snapped out of the coma they fell into when Biden took office. It’s not that they liked him — they just dozed off during his weird pauses. And young Trump’s energy has jolted them awake. They’re hating America and everything the West stands for again. That’s fantastic news. The worst thing is when idiots don’t hate you. They’re already screaming awful things in Arabic on their dull TV channels — until an Israeli missile crashes the live feed, doing an explosive striptease in response to their war-mongering rants. Maybe the missile’s got “Let’s get along through friendly dialogue” scribbled on it.   Nothing’s louder than an Iranian cleric’s mouth. Even the Islamic world knows it. Among radicals, there’s still a pecking order. You’ve got the small-town mosque preacher, who loves detailing how to whip women. The lone European jihadist, whose sex life is so pathetic it’s easy to convince him to blow himself up for a paradise full of bikini-clad girls. The Pakistani terrorist leader, so pinpointed by every intelligence agency he’ll be found more often than not eating cockroaches in a filthy cave. The ISIS TV-producer terrorist, whose biggest leap in 500 years is learning to edit social media videos. The Palestinian terrorist, convinced by the international community that his massacres of innocents are just political activism. And then there’s the Iranian cleric, seductively stroking a nuclear warhead while filming a video to wish his niece a happy third birthday.   Trump’s now told Iran, in so many words, that its vast land could fit Texas and Alaska combined — a perfect spot for a middle-class American family’s vacation home, free of pesky nuclear radiation! All Iran needs to do is beg the U.S. military to start the demolition work.   Now that the U.S. president has informed the supreme leader they’ve got him in their sights but aren’t in the mood to drop a bomb on him just yet, Ali Khamenei has two options: keep tweeting his delusional fantasies about beating Israel in a war, or hand over his account password to Trump and enjoy a well-deserved retirement (especially deserved by the citizens who endure him). All revolutions are bad. Islamic ones are worse.   As for the rest, the Chinese don’t want trouble — or at least not the kind with explosions and casualties. Putin’s torn between spitting in Trump’s face or downing a bottle of vodka with him, swapping Russian blonde jokes. North Korea’s chubby leader is getting old and unhealthy, with his geostrategic agility as robust as his cholesterol. Syria’s now so cozy with the U.S. that Damascus is plastered with billboards thanking Trump (even he didn’t see that coming). With Pakistan, Trump’s working on a trade deal, so it’s not the time for their leaders to piss off the boss.   As for Cuba (what’s left of it), Maduro (what’s left of him), and other usual suspects, they’re too busy starving their people to death. Maybe once they’ve finished off everyone, they’ll fancy threatening the U.S., but it’s hard to be a threat when your army hasn’t eaten in days.   In short, the usual America- and West-haters are back, thanks to Trump, and that feels good. The difference is that their bloc isn’t as solid, and there are some key players missing. Iran can keep slamming its arsenal into Israel’s Iron Dome if it wants, but every explosion there is another drop against Trump’s patience. Since that assassination attempt last campaign, he’s got a low tolerance for idiot enemies who feint but don’t swing, who promise talks with the White House while belting out Islamist war hymns on TV and showering a U.S.-friendly country with missiles. READ MORE by Itxu Díaz: Imagine if Biden Did What Spanish Prime Minister Has Done We Need to Return to Trump’s Law and Order Musk v. Trump Isn’t Funny The post America’s Enemies Are Back (And There Are Fewer of Them Than Before) appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

You might think that, after so many years of toxic feminism coming from the progressive Left, conservatives would have decided to coalesce around some consistent form of response. You’d be wrong. On the one hand we have the tradwives whose glamorization of milling flour and sourdough bread tends to make them a rather easy target for ridicule — and, even more extreme, the red-pillers who question whether women’s right to vote was even a good thing and believe that women are naturally inferior to men. That view is obviously problematic, and The American Spectator’s Ellie Gardey Holmes already did a fantastic job breaking it down in these pages a few months ago. And then there’s the reaction to the red-pillers, the women who know that telling women they’re inferior and ought to be entirely submissive to men is not only wrong, but also not going to go over well. They’ve apparently decided that the better message is an amalgamation of feminism: “Women get to have it all” and are “strong enough to succeed in both motherhood & [a] career,” they tell their X followers. (READ MORE: How Contemporary Feminism Endangers Women) That message is certainly a better one and, at its root, comes from a good place. It not only promotes a pro-life culture (Dr. Abby Johnson, the ex-Planned Parenthood director turned pro-life activist, and Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life, are both major proponents), it attempts to recognize women’s inherent dignity and capability. Unfortunately, it’s also a lie — or at least it stretches the truth a bit. The Atlantic’s Olga Khazan recently interviewed some of these women and found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that a lifestyle that includes both motherhood and a successful, “greedy” career requires a supportive husband (who perhaps doesn’t work outside the home) and an incredibly flexible job. Dig a little deeper, and you find there are concessions being made. Simone Collins, who works with her husband to advance pronatalism, admitted that spending her afternoons working requires accepting that kids will be more “chaotically parented” by their father sometimes. Johnson said she’d missed some of her kids’ early milestones (like first steps) due to her hectic schedule, and Hawkins says that she often tells young women that trying to combine motherhood and a career “does require sacrifice.” When Khazan interviewed Catholic University of America economist Catherine Ruth Pakaluk (who has eight children), she gave the honest answer most of us expect. “Of course there’s a trade-off. It’s massive…. If I didn’t have children, I would have done a lot more professionally,” she said. “I’m happy with this trade-off.” Khazan’s article wasn’t exactly trying to figure out the non-feminist answer to the problem of modern womanhood either. “Research suggests that a small number of Americans without children have regrets, but most do not, ” she mused. “[A]t the same time, some parents experience regret that they chose to have kids.” Not having kids (which is what Khazan seems to imply is the fix) isn’t exactly a solution for those of us who believe life is a miracle. (READ MORE: A Miracle Baby Is Surviving His Mother’s Brain Death, and the Left Is Outraged) I’m no expert on the whole feminist matter, although I’ve certainly given it plenty of thought as of late. I recently got married and am preparing myself for the eventual arrival of children, making a home, and trying to balance all manner of odd jobs outside the home (which I genuinely enjoy). This question — how ought women to balance household and family responsibilities with work outside the home — is becoming increasingly relevant to my own life. At some point, I’ll come to a crossroads and have to make hard decisions about which things to prioritize. You can blame biology or the patriarchy if you’d like, but the fact of the matter is that women, as a general rule, are better at keeping a home clean, children clothed and entertained, and dinner on the table than their husbands. The feminist narrative is so pervasive in our society that, no matter their upbringing, most women recoil a little when they hear that — after all, we’ve been told that lifestyle is a form of slavery for decades, and maybe some part of us believes that. What we aren’t told is that women who opt for the career of “stay-at-home mom” have chosen the better part. G.K. Chesterton, as feminism was just beginning to get its legs under it, remarked that the modern tendency to refer to domesticity as drudgery made little sense to him if drudgery was (as feminists intended) supposed to describe hard, trifling, and colorless work: To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets, cakes and books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? This, perhaps, begins to get at the heart of the matter. It’s not that a woman shouldn’t work outside the home — the Left tells us that it’s difficult for the modern family to live on one income, and the Left (for once) is right. Women can have careers and enjoy their jobs. They shouldn’t feel immensely guilty when their husbands step in to handle the growing stack of dishes in the sink or the monstrous beast of laundry getting out of hand in the basement. But, when a woman sits down to try to figure out whether she can take on that extra project or accept a promotion at work, her first and primary question should be: “Will I still be able to make a home and nurture my kids?” Deep down, it’s that’s the question she wants to answer anyway. READ MORE from Aubrey Harris: My Job as a Journalist Is Going to a Bot A Rare France Win in the War on Porn The post Lying to Women Doesn’t Defeat Feminism appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Across America, ancient roads still wind through bustling cities and quiet rural landscapes, echoing the journeys of those who came before us. These age-old paths—some predating the nation itself—served as trade routes, migration trails, and lifelines for early communities. Today, they remain vital arteries, linking towns to their historical roots and shaping the unique character ...

from Mark Dice: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Elizabeth Weibel, Breitbart: Border Patrol agents did not release any illegal migrants into the United States during the month of May, a decrease from the more than 60,000 who were released into the U.S. the year before, according to a report. The New York Post reported that while Border Patrol agents “caught 8,725” illegal aliens attempting to […]