A Bullet in the Heart of America: The Murder of Charlie Kirk and the Nation’s Breakdown

 

Charlie Kirk’s killer didn’t just fire a bullet into one man; he fired it into America’s conscience, proving that liberal tolerance dies the moment their “wokeness” is challenged by truth.

Charlie Kirk was murdered for doing what America desperately needs more of—speaking truth against lies. He stood on a college campus in Utah, confronting liberal delusions with the courage of a lion, and for that courage he was shot dead. The assassin, Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old who surrendered only because his family had a conscience, carried out the sort of act that should make every American recoil in disgust. I condemn him without hesitation. He silenced a man who spent his life telling America the very things that could save it. And in doing so, Robinson did not just take Kirk’s life—he put a bullet in the very heart of the republic.

Facts do not lie: Charlie Kirk lived as a warrior in a cultural war that most people were too timid to fight. At just 18, he abandoned what he believed to be the academic indoctrination mills that called themselves universities and founded Turning Point USA, the most powerful conservative youth organization in modern history. It was not a vanity project. By 2023, TPUSA generated $92.4 million in revenue, had a presence in 850 college chapters, and became the loudest megaphone for young conservatives. His influence reached into the veins of politics itself. He helped Donald Trump mobilize the youth vote, he shaped the Republican National Committee, and he vetted candidates for the president’s cabinet. Yet he refused to run for office because he knew the battlefield was not in Washington’s swamp, but in America’s classrooms. That is where he believed the future was decided. That is where he was killed.

The pathology of our age is not hidden—it is a festering wound for all to see. Liberals prop up “wokeness” as if it were gospel, while crime devours our cities like locusts in a harvest field. Families disintegrate, drugs bury young lives, and the very foundations of truth and reason are mocked in classrooms. Charlie Kirk called it out. He fought against critical race theory, gender ideology, and the nihilistic teaching that America is a nation to be ashamed of rather than proud of. He did not do it with half-measures; he did it with fire. For that, millions followed him, and millions more despised him.

His assassination is proof that when words are stifled, bullets take their place. Kirk once said, “When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence.” How prophetic those words now sound. He traveled campus to campus to ensure that young people kept talking, that dialogue—heated though it may be—would prevail over destruction. His killer ensured the opposite. Tyler Robinson’s bullet was not only aimed at Charlie Kirk; it was aimed at every American who still believes in free speech, in family, in faith, and in the idea that this country is not beyond saving.

Political violence in America is climbing like a fever that will not break. From the hammer attack on Paul Pelosi to the foiled plot against Justice Brett Kavanaugh, from the attempted kidnapping of Governor Gretchen Whitmer to the near-fatal shots fired at Donald Trump last year, the list grows like weeds in an abandoned lot. And now, Charlie Kirk’s name is added to that shameful roll call. It is no accident. It is the inevitable result of a culture that glorifies rage and rewards the silencing of dissent with fame. When you dance with snakes, do not be surprised when you get bitten.

Make no mistake: Charlie Kirk was not perfect. He was brash, sometimes blunt to the point of offense, but he was necessary. He understood that America cannot survive if its young people are fed poison by some extremely liberal professors who hate the country. He confronted them head-on, unmasking their lies with the tenacity of a bulldog and the clarity of a preacher. He knew that saving America required not just winning elections, but reclaiming its soul from classrooms where some extremely liberal professors preach resentment instead of resilience. That mission ended in blood on a Utah campus.

The shooter must be condemned as a coward. He faced a man with words and answered with bullets. That is not bravery; that is weakness dressed up as violence. And yet, this weakness is becoming the trademark of our times. Liberal America, which shouts about tolerance, has built a climate where disagreement is treated as violence and actual violence is then justified as “resistance.” The hypocrisy is thick enough to choke a nation. When you feed a crocodile hoping it will eat you last, remember you are still on the menu. Charlie Kirk understood that. He warned America. And then he became the meal.

President Trump was right to call Kirk “legendary.” He was more than a political activist; he was a cultural sentinel. Among young voters, especially on TikTok, surveys showed he was the most trusted conservative voice. That influence contributed to Trump’s return to the presidency. For liberals, that made Kirk dangerous. For conservatives, it made him invaluable. And now, with his assassination, the void he leaves is immense. Who will step into that role? Who will walk onto hostile campuses, strip away the blindfold of ideology, and dare to tell young Americans that their faith, their families, and their future matter more than the lies of wokeness?

I believe the answer lies in whether Americans have the courage to face the truth. We cannot shrug and move on, as if Charlie Kirk’s death were just another headline. His blood cries out against a culture that excuses criminals, celebrates degeneracy, and mocks those who stand for values. If we remain silent, then Kirk’s murder will become the prologue to a darker story, one in which America’s soul collapses under the weight of its own cowardice. A house divided cannot stand, but a house infested with termites collapses even faster. Right now, America is infested.

Charlie Kirk died doing what he was born to do—debating, confronting, and exposing the rot. He did not choose the easy path of political office or cushy think tanks. He chose the battlefield of ideas, the toughest terrain in America today, the college campus. And it cost him his life. The least we can do is honor that sacrifice by refusing to cower, refusing to let wokeness and crime gnaw away at this nation. He has passed the torch. The question is whether we will let it burn out or carry it forward.

America needs more Charlie Kirks, not fewer. His killer tried to silence him, but in doing so, he may have made his voice louder than ever. The tragedy is undeniable. The challenge is unavoidable. Will America finally wake up to the pathology consuming it, or will it bury another truth-teller and pretend the disease does not exist? The answer will decide whether we still deserve to call ourselves a free people.

 

Europe’s Gas Games: Feeding Putin While Pretending to Fight Him

 

Europe hides behind America’s shadow, pretending helplessness, while funding the very tyrant they condemn. Putin thrives because Europe prefers comfort over courage. Europe must realize one important fact: When you feed a crocodile in hopes it will eat you last, you are still on the menu.

Europe loves to strike poses of moral outrage when Russia bombs another Ukrainian building, but when it comes time to actually act, the outrage melts away into a comfortable shrug. I see a continent that has mastered the art of condemning Moscow with one hand while signing checks to Gazprom with the other. The facts are plain: Russian missiles tore into Kyiv, hitting a government building in the heart of Ukraine. Yet instead of Europe turning off the cash faucet that fuels Putin’s war machine, it continues to buy Russian liquefied natural gas at record highs. That isn’t resistance; that’s complicity dressed up in diplomatic suits.

For all the speeches about sanctions, what Europe has really done is create a price cap that works like a coupon at a discount store. Russia still sells oil, just at a cheaper price. And in case anyone doubts it, Russia is still selling plenty of oil, plenty of gas, and still earning billions. The North Stream pipeline may have been blown up, but liquefied natural gas exports remain strong—$8 billion a year strong. Eight billion dollars is pocket change in Silicon Valley, but it’s lifeblood in Moscow. While Ukraine bleeds, Europe’s energy addiction keeps Putin’s economy alive.

This is the game Europe plays: talking about standing with Ukraine while standing in line for Russian gas. They scold Putin in the daytime and pay him by night. It is like trying to starve a wolf while throwing bones at its feet. If Europe were truly serious, it would cut off every drop of Russian LNG, not tomorrow, not in the distant future, but now. Eight billion dollars may not sound like much compared to America’s trillion-dollar tech fantasies, but for Russia, it is the money that buys the bullets, the drones, and the bombs that keep falling on Kyiv.

Some will say that Europe cannot afford to cut off Russian gas because winter looms and their people need heat. But let’s not pretend this is about survival. This is about comfort, about keeping prices low enough so voters don’t complain. In that selfish calculation, the lives of Ukrainians become expendable. Europe prefers to buy itself warmth while Ukraine freezes under missile fire. A house built on lies will not stand when the storm comes. Europe pretends to defend freedom while paying the tyrant who is destroying it.

I do not buy the argument that Europe cannot survive without America to lead. Europe is not some helpless orphan waiting for Uncle Sam to rescue it. The infrastructure is already there. American LNG companies stand ready to ship gas across the Atlantic. Venture Global, Cheniere, and others can ramp up production, and Europe itself has the resources to develop alternatives. The only thing missing is political will. But political will is the one resource Europe seems unwilling to produce. Instead, leaders drag their feet, hold conferences, issue statements, and whisper about flexibility, all while Putin watches and laughs.

Let’s face it: Europe is not being sincere. They want Ukraine to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian soldier, while they hedge their bets, hoping the war will magically end before their gas bills rise. But wars do not end by magic. Wars end when the aggressor is humiliated, when the flow of money is cut off, when the arsenal is emptied, and when defeat becomes undeniable. Europe has the power to do this. They can starve Putin’s war chest overnight. But they will not, because to them, $8 billion in Russian gas is worth more than the sovereignty of Ukraine.

The danger is not just Ukraine’s. If Europe thinks it can keep playing games, it must realize that today it is Kyiv under fire, but tomorrow it could be London, Warsaw, Vilnius, or Berlin. Putin’s appetite will not be satisfied with Ukraine alone. When you feed a crocodile in hopes it will eat you last, you are still on the menu. The lesson should be clear: every euro Europe pays Russia today is a down payment on its own future destruction.

I say it bluntly: Europe does not need America’s help to humiliate Putin. They do not need Washington lectures or White House press releases. All they need to do is shut off the gas taps and mean it. They have the power to bankrupt Russia’s economy in months. They have the means to crush Putin’s leverage. The only thing they lack is courage. Courage, unfortunately, cannot be imported on LNG tankers.

So long as Europe keeps pretending, Putin keeps bombing. So long as Europe chooses comfort over principle, the missiles will keep flying. Ukraine is the testing ground of Europe’s sincerity, and so far, Europe is failing the test. If Europe does not act now, the sound of Russian drones over Kyiv will one day echo over Europe’s own capitals. And when that day comes, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

The clock is ticking. Europe can either cut off the cash and cripple Putin’s war, or it can keep paying for its own funeral. The choice is theirs, but the consequences will be everyone’s. I have no sympathy left for leaders who wring their hands while wiring money to Moscow. Either you help Ukraine win, or you prepare to lose yourself. That is the fact, and no amount of diplomatic flexibility can bend it into something else.

 

 

Why President Trump Must Fire Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

Everything that is right and reasonable shows that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should be fired: his morbid hatred of vaccines and orthodox medicine makes him unfit to safeguard public health.

In plain terms, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has become the nation’s worst health secretary. Instead of guarding the country’s well-being, he’s turned public health into a demolition project. His obsession with tearing down vaccines, his hatred of orthodox medicine, and his disregard for science have left America standing in quicksand at the very moment we need steady ground.

When the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), backed by twenty other groups, declared that Americans would needlessly suffer and die under Kennedy’s watch, that was not partisan chatter. These are the very people who spend their lives preventing outbreaks, saving patients, and fighting disease. For them to break precedent and demand his resignation shows just how far off the rails Kennedy has gone. When the fire brigade refuses to enter a burning building because the chief poured gasoline on the flames, you know you’re in trouble.

Kennedy has dismissed decades of work on food safety, vaccination, and chronic disease prevention. These are not optional luxuries; they are the pillars that keep communities alive. Yet he treats science like an enemy to be mocked and ignored. A man who breaks his own compass should not be leading an expedition. And yet here we are, with Kennedy steering the Department of Health straight into the rocks.

His hostility toward medical experts is so brazen that even seasoned professionals had to admit they’d never seen anything like it. Amanda Jezek of the IDSA explained how her group tried repeatedly to meet with Kennedy, only to be stonewalled. He would not even give the courtesy of a conversation. That’s not leadership—it’s arrogance dressed up as independence. When the very people you’re supposed to listen to line up at your door and you slam it in their faces, you’re not just ignoring science—you’re declaring war on it.

Then came the firing of the CDC director, which set off a wave of resignations from top scientists. That wasn’t a reshuffling—it was a purge. Imagine a football coach cutting his star quarterback, his running back, and his defensive line right before the Super Bowl because they wouldn’t play barefoot. That’s what Kennedy did. He gutted the nation’s most important health agency in the middle of crisis season, leaving the public to pay the price.

And what did he do next? He strutted into the Senate Finance Committee, defending his twisted views on vaccines, then hopped on social media to call for “new blood” at the CDC. Let’s be honest—Kennedy doesn’t want new blood, he wants no blood. He wants to drain the system dry of credibility and replace it with his pet theories. A doctor who prescribes bleach for fever should never run the hospital. Yet Kennedy keeps writing prescriptions for disaster.

But here’s the cruelest joke of all: President Trump has kept him in place. The President, who sells himself as a dealmaker and a tough boss, is now the enabler-in-chief of this catastrophe. He drinks from Kennedy’s poisoned chalice and insists it’s vintage wine. Every day Kennedy sits at HHS is another day Trump signs off on the slow poisoning of America’s health. If you let a snake sleep in your bed, don’t be surprised when it bites.

Trump cannot plead ignorance. The resignations are public, the warnings loud, the evidence overwhelming. By keeping Kennedy, Trump owns Kennedy’s failures. Every preventable death, every vaccine delayed, every program dismantled will stain Trump’s record as much as Kennedy’s. This is not loyalty—it’s liability. And a president who mistakes the two ends up dragging the whole nation down with him.

The truth is brutal: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has no business running the Department of Health and Human Services. And President Trump has no excuse for letting him stay. When the roof is leaking and the landlord shrugs, the tenants drown. That’s where America stands right now—drowning in bad leadership while the man at the top insists everything is fine.

I won’t sugarcoat it. Kennedy has turned HHS into a circus where medicine is mocked, progress is reversed, and science is booed off the stage. Trump is the ringmaster who refuses to shut it down. Together, they have made public health a gamble where the stakes are measured in human lives.

America cannot afford another day of Kennedy’s sabotage. And we cannot afford another day of Trump pretending this is leadership. The fire alarms are blaring, the exits are blocked, and the house is filling with smoke. If this isn’t the moment to demand change, then we may as well admit we’ve chosen self-destruction.

 

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as the Megaphone of Mar-a-Lago

 

The Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is nothing but President Trump’s megaphone, every word from his lips a hymn of praise for Trump. That is ridiculous—are we in America, or rehearsing loyalty oaths in Moscow?

On Thursday, President Trump signed an executive order slashing tariffs on auto and other imports from Japan, cutting the rates from a punishing 25–27.5% down to 15%. In return, Japan supposedly agreed to provide $550 billion for Trump to invest wherever he pleases in America. The way Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick tells the story, you would think the Emperor of Japan personally handed Trump a blank check with a bow. He insists this deal alone represents half a percent of GDP growth for every year of Trump’s term. But here’s the problem: Lutnick never manages to present a single fact without coating it in a thick layer of flattery for the president. It is as if his job description reads, “Speak loudly into the presidential megaphone and praise without pause.”

According to Lutnick, Japan is not just lowering tariffs; they are showering America with capital calls like confetti at a wedding. He paints an image of Trump commanding an Alaskan pipeline into existence, calling Tokyo like a landlord demanding rent. To hear Lutnick tell it, the Japanese will simply open their wallets whenever Trump snaps his fingers. Never mind that Japanese officials have described the package as a combination of loans, investments, and loan guarantees—words that suggest complexity, not blind generosity. Lutnick waves those details away, declaring it doesn’t matter how Tokyo gets the money, only that Trump has full discretion to spend it as he pleases. That’s not analysis; that’s worship dressed up as economic commentary. When the town crier shouts only the king’s name, the village stops hearing the truth.

Employment numbers, too, are turned into a stage for Trump’s glorification. Lutnick claims this deal will cause jobs to “explode” next year, with unemployment vanishing like snow in July. He assures us that over 6.9 million sidelined Americans will suddenly leap into the labor market once Trump trains them for new “tech jobs.” Factories, HVAC systems, pipelines—it all becomes a chorus singing the president’s praises. Lutnick even insists that 5 million Americans will be trained for these roles. The precision of the numbers almost disguises the absurdity. Where is the infrastructure to train them? Where are the budgets? Instead of details, all we hear is: Trump wills it, therefore it will be.

Even the Federal Reserve is not spared from Lutnick’s narrative. He berates Jerome Powell for keeping interest rates “absurdly” high, blaming him for slowing Trump’s economic miracle. Again, the analysis is absent. No discussion of inflationary risks, global credit conditions, or fiscal policy pressures. Just a simple chant: Trump is right, the Fed is wrong. This is not economic leadership; it is a pep rally disguised as policy. A drummer who only beats one note eventually deafens the crowd.

When the conversation turns to legal challenges against the tariffs, Lutnick’s tone grows even more slavish. He insists the courts are stacked in Trump’s favor, noting how judge after judge supposedly sided with him. According to Lutnick, the Supreme Court will naturally rule Trump’s way, because the “smartest” judge in the lower court already did. The analysis is childlike in its simplicity, as if judicial decisions hinge on loyalty oaths rather than constitutional law. Here again, Lutnick cannot resist turning a question about checks and balances into another hymn for Trump’s leadership. When justice bends too much toward one man, the scales of liberty tip into tyranny.

The secretary’s obsession with Trump’s authority over foreign policy borders on parody. He declares that only Trump, elected by the entire nation, has the right to direct America’s trade strategy. He mocks Canada for daring to retaliate, praises Europe for “paying us 15% while our exporters pay zero,” and crows that no one dares resist Trump’s genius. Japan’s contribution, he insists, will fund everything from semiconductor plants to generic drug factories, freeing America from Chinese antibiotic dependence. He calls it the smartest deal ever made, possible only because Trump sits in the Oval Office. The implication is clear: without Trump, America is helpless; with Trump, America is invincible. This is not policy, it is idolatry. When every road is said to lead to one man, the map of democracy is already burning.

Even the Bureau of Labor Statistics is dragged into Lutnick’s performance. Asked about the credibility of upcoming jobs numbers, he dismisses any past data as the result of anti-Trump bias. The old BLS leadership, he says, was rooting against America, while the new leadership will be “on side” and finally produce the “correct” numbers. Let that sink in: the credibility of statistics depends not on methodology or accuracy, but on whether the officials salute the president. This is not America’s tradition of independent data; it is the logic of Moscow, where numbers are valuable only if they serve the leader’s narrative.

What emerges from Lutnick’s every word is not analysis but amplification. He is not a commerce secretary weighing costs and benefits; he is a cheerleader waving pompoms in the Cabinet room. His voice is not his own; it is an echo of Trump’s. And that is dangerous. Democracies require critical voices, not megaphones. They need checks on power, not sycophants showering the president with unbroken streams of praise. A river that never changes course eventually floods the valley.

As I listened to Lutnick’s description of this so-called “Japanese miracle,” I felt less like I was hearing the policy of a great republic and more like I was watching a play in which every actor repeats the same line: “Trump is amazing.” I ask myself: are we still in America, the land where officials once prided themselves on independence? Or have we stumbled into a theater where dissent is silenced, and the only approved script is praise for the man in power? Lutnick cannot finish one sentence without crowning Trump the savior of the economy. That is not economics; that is propaganda.

And so the question must be asked. Are we witnessing the crafting of smart policy, or simply the rehearsal of loyalty oaths? Lutnick calls it the smartest deal ever made. I call it the loudest echo chamber ever built. If this is what economic stewardship has become—one man’s megaphone blaring across the republic—then the danger is not in tariffs or pipelines but in the erosion of reason itself. When the rooster crows for only one dawn, the farm forgets there are other mornings.

 

The Classroom Circus: Kick Out the Cell Phones, Watch the Grades Grow

 

Schools that banish smartphones from classrooms unleash sharper minds, higher grades, and freer laughter; distraction falls, focus returns, and pupils discover happiness was never in their screens but in the lessons they nearly missed.

I have seen classrooms turn into comedy shows where the punchline glows in every teenager’s pocket. Once upon a time, the worst distraction was a doodle in the margin or a paper airplane sailing off course. Now, the distractions come with Wi-Fi. Smartphones are not just tools—they’re pocket-sized carnivals, buzzing, flashing, and pulling attention like pickpockets in a crowded market. And yet, we pretend this circus belongs in the classroom. It doesn’t. If we want scores to rise and students to smile, the glowing rectangles must go.

Let’s call it like it is: phones are poison for focus. When classrooms dump them at the door, grades go up. That’s not speculation—it’s fact. Studies tracking thousands of students prove performance improves when phones are left outside. The weakest students, the ones struggling hardest, benefit most. Allowing phones in classrooms and still expecting high scores is like planting weeds in your garden and praying for roses.

The defenders of classroom phones hide behind the “technology is the future” excuse. But students already drown in technology the moment the last bell rings. They binge on screens at home, on buses, at night, in bed. Banning phones in class does not make them digital hermits—it makes them human beings with a fighting chance to think without dopamine traps dragging their brains into quicksand. Computer skills can be taught in computer labs. Geometry proofs don’t need TikTok filters.

The old argument about humans always fearing new inventions—books, calculators, even writing—is tired. Plato worried about writing making memory weaker. Yes, but scrolls never vibrated to announce that a classmate just posted a duck-faced selfie. Clay tablets never offered a slot machine of endless “likes.” Comparing books to smartphones is like comparing a library to a casino: one builds knowledge, the other bets against your focus.

Look around the world. South Korea slammed the door on phones in schools. Finland tightened rules. States across America are waking up. The result? Students focus. Teachers teach. Grades climb. And here’s the kicker: students eventually thank the schools. Why? Because when no one has the device, no one misses out. A class without phones is a level playing field. If one kid is Snapchatting, everyone else feels left behind. But when the ban is total, the chains break. When the drum of distraction is silenced, the song of learning finally plays.

Phones don’t just chip away at grades—they chew away at happiness. Constant comparison to polished Instagram lives makes kids miserable. The buzzing, dinging, endless scrolling creates stress dressed as entertainment. Take the phones out, and suddenly, students talk face-to-face. They laugh at real jokes, not emojis. They even rediscover boredom—and boredom, strange as it sounds, is fertile ground for creativity. When the weeds are pulled, the flowers of imagination bloom.

Critics say the evidence isn’t overwhelming yet. One study in Sweden found no effect from bans. Fine. But if a patient is bleeding out and three doctors yell “apply pressure,” do we wait for a fourth to confirm before grabbing the gauze? Teachers don’t have the luxury of waiting decades for perfect data. They face squirming, distracted students every day. The best evidence we have says phones kill attention, and that’s enough to act now.

And here’s the part that makes me laugh: eliminating phones is the easiest problem schools can solve. Poverty? Massive challenge. Underfunding? Political minefield. Phones? Simple. Ban them. No federal budget fight, no billion-dollar reform, no years of debate. Just enforce the rule, and overnight the classroom changes. If you can’t clean the whole house, at least take out the trash.

The irony is that students themselves eventually feel relief. At first, they moan. But soon, they realize life without constant buzzing feels lighter. They don’t lose friends, they lose chains. They no longer juggle math problems and Snapchat streaks at the same time. They rediscover what it means to be present. A mind uncluttered is like a clear sky—the light shines through.

Phones in classrooms turn teachers into referees instead of educators. Kick the phones out, and suddenly the game is fair again. Students learn. Teachers teach. And yes, grades rise. Pretending otherwise is self-deception. The classroom is not a smartphone lounge; it’s the forge where minds are sharpened. Tossing phones in the mix is like dousing the forge in water and wondering why the blade bends.

Education is already limping worldwide. Scores are sliding. Attention spans are shrinking. And yet, we pour gasoline on the fire by keeping phones in classrooms. Ban them, and the flames shrink. Let them stay, and the blaze spreads. He who chases two rabbits catches none, and students who chase both Snapchat and science will graduate catching neither.

So let’s strip away the excuses. Phones have no place in classrooms. When they vanish, focus returns. When focus returns, happiness follows. And when happiness follows, grades rise. Kick out the clowns, shut down the circus, and let the classroom shine as the stage of learning it was always meant to be.

 

Crawling Out of the Ivory Tower: Democrats Finally Admit Their 'Woke' Words Are Nonsense

 

Democrats are finally being told to drop the circus of ‘woke’ words—like calling a pregnant woman a “birthing person” or a criminal an “incarcerated person.” At last, they’re crawling out of the ivory tower and starting to sound like normal people.

For years, I have watched the Democratic Party wrap itself in a cocoon of words so detached from reality that even the people they claim to represent couldn’t recognize themselves in the descriptions. They seemed convinced that the right concoction of syllables—words like “birthing person” instead of pregnant woman or “incarcerated people” instead of criminals—would magically fix their political mess. But now, at long last, a memo has landed on their desks, bluntly telling them to cut it out. And for the first time in a long while, they’re beginning to crawl down from the ivory tower and speak like normal human beings again.

The memo circulating among Democrats lists forty-five words and phrases that should be banished from their vocabulary. It wasn’t written to mock them but to save them. These terms, the memo explains, put a wall between the party and everyday Americans. They are the kind of expressions you’d expect to hear in a college seminar where the walls are covered in posters about “systems of oppression” and “radical transparency.” But when spoken in the real world, they clang like a broken bell. Ordinary people do not walk around asking their neighbors if they’ve experienced “environmental violence” or accusing them of “subverting norms.” They do not look at a homeless man on the street and think “the unhoused.” They say homeless, plain and simple. And they certainly don’t look at a mother-to-be and call her a “birthing person,” as though she were a machine in a maternity factory.

The absurdity is not just in the words themselves, but in the arrogance behind them. Democrats have long acted like linguistic referees, blowing whistles at the rest of us for using everyday speech. Say “woman” and you’re told you should say “cisgender female.” Say “prisoner” and they insist on “justice-involved individual.” It reminds me of an old proverb: a man who insists on polishing the clouds forgets the dirt on his own shoes. Democrats have been polishing clouds for too long, convinced that changing language would change reality. Yet crime still spikes, families still struggle, and communities still feel unsafe, no matter how pretty the new terms sound.

The memo itself admits that in trying to please a few, Democrats have alienated the many. That is the beating heart of the problem. They have been speaking to one another in echo chambers, congratulating themselves for sounding enlightened, while the rest of the country listened with confusion, irritation, or outright laughter. Even comedians, who usually lean their way, have joined in mocking how ridiculous they sound. When late-night jokes about your vocabulary land harder than your campaign speeches, you know the ship is sinking.

Take a look at some of the words blacklisted by the memo. “Microaggression.” “Othering.” “Dialoguing.” “Holding space.” These phrases may impress in a graduate classroom, but they leave ordinary Americans scratching their heads. “Food insecurity” instead of hunger. “Housing insecurity” instead of homelessness. “The unhoused” instead of homeless people. The Democrats’ obsession with these terms has made them sound like robots programmed to avoid offense at all costs. But as the saying goes, a knife that fears to cut will never chop firewood. Politics requires clarity, not cowardice.

Nothing exposes the absurdity more than the phrase “birthing person.” In one swoop, Democrats managed to strip away the beauty of motherhood, replacing it with cold, mechanical jargon. My grandmother, who raised ten children, would laugh herself to tears if someone had ever called her that. The word “mother” carries generations of meaning, love, and sacrifice. Replacing it with “birthing person” doesn’t expand dignity—it erases it. It turns a woman into a process, not a person.

Then there’s “incarcerated people.” Of course criminals are still people. Nobody disputes that. But the phrase blurs the moral line, softens accountability, and suggests that society is at fault rather than the individuals who commit crimes. When a man robs a store, assaults a woman, or takes a life, he is not simply “justice-involved.” He is a criminal. By refusing to say it, Democrats sound less like leaders and more like lawyers rehearsing excuses. And the public notices. As one observer of the memo pointed out, the very communities these terms are meant to protect don’t even use them. Prisoners call themselves prisoners. Families of convicts call them inmates. The only people insisting on this bizarre terminology are politicians desperate to sound progressive.

This is why the memo strikes such a nerve. It’s not only about language. It’s about trust. When a politician can’t say something in plain words, people begin to suspect they can’t say the truth either. A voter who hears about “existential threats” and “stakeholders” may wonder what problem is really being described. A citizen who hears about “cultural appropriation” instead of cultural exchange feels accused rather than inspired. Every fancy word widens the gap between the politician and the people they want to lead.

The memo urges Democrats to stop speaking as though every sentence is a landmine, waiting to offend someone. And it is right. A political party that cannot say things clearly will never win the trust of a majority. That is why the document calls on Democrats to talk in ways that welcome voters rather than repel them. Words should be bridges, not barricades. The fact that it took forty-five banned terms for them to see this truth shows just how far gone the party’s language has become.

Of course, Democrats claim they are not trying to police speech. They say they only want clarity. But the irony is glaring: they have been policing speech for years, branding anyone who didn’t adopt their new vocabulary as backwards or hateful. Now they are the ones being told to change. It is poetic justice, a taste of their own medicine. The hunters of words have become the hunted.

The truth is simple: Americans don’t need therapy-speak from their leaders. They don’t need “dialoguing” or “holding space.” They want leaders who can talk about jobs, safety, family, and freedom without sounding like they swallowed a sociology textbook. They want plain words that reflect plain truths. As the proverb goes, a bird that forgets how to sing will not be heard in the forest. If Democrats forget how to speak the language of ordinary people, they will not be heard at the ballot box.

Now the question is whether they will listen. Some within their ranks—figures like Andy Beshear and Pete Buttigieg—are trying to steer the party toward normal speech again. They are admitting that even progressive causes can be defended in plain English. But whether the rest of the party will follow is uncertain. For now, at least, Democrats are being forced to confront a truth they have long resisted: their words have become their worst enemies.

The memo doesn’t solve their deeper problems—policy failures, voter distrust, and cultural divides—but it shines a spotlight on their greatest self-inflicted wound. By turning language into a carnival of absurdities, they pushed ordinary Americans away. And now, like circus performers finally stepping off the tightrope, they are being told to put down the juggling pins, take off the clown paint, and talk like normal people. If they fail, no amount of “radical transparency” or “allyship” will save them from political oblivion.

Because at the end of the day, Americans know one thing: you cannot cook soup with words alone. You need substance. And until Democrats learn to serve that substance in plain, honest language, their words—no matter how carefully chosen—will continue to sound like noise from a tower nobody lives in anymore.

 

Drawing Lines or Crying Lines? How Democrats Turned Redistricting into a Melodrama

 

When Democrats gerrymander, it is painted as noble reform; when Republicans do it, the sky is supposedly falling. It reminds me of the old saying, the pot cannot accuse the kettle of being blackened by the same fire it cooks with. Democrats need to understand one important fact: you cannot stop the rooster from crowing just because you dislike the morning sun.

Texas Republicans have done what political parties do best: they played the game by the rules of power. Early Saturday morning, after hours of debate, they approved a new congressional map that shifts the battlefield in their favor. It was no small feat; the GOP-controlled state Senate forced the bill to a vote, blocking a Democratic senator’s attempt at a filibuster. In that moment, the ink dried not just on paper but on the Democrats’ tears.

The new map positions Republicans to gain as many as five additional seats in Congress, aiming to increase their total from 25 to 30. With only a three-seat majority in the U.S. House, those new Texas lines are like oxygen to a party fighting to keep control. Governor Greg Abbott is poised to sign the bill, locking in what Democrats call a “power grab” and what Republicans call simply winning the game by the rules on the table.

But instead of acknowledging that redistricting is a tool every party uses, Democrats reacted as if Texas had pulled a rabbit from a rigged hat. California rushed to retaliate by approving a ballot measure to create five new Democratic seats, bypassing its supposedly sacred independent commission. Governor Gavin Newsom dressed it up as protecting democracy, though it looked more like a magician cutting the deck in his favor. When Democrats gerrymander, it is painted as noble reform; when Republicans do it, the sky is supposedly falling. It reminds me of the old saying, the pot cannot accuse the kettle of being blackened by the same fire it cooks with.

Democrats then turned to the courts, filing a lawsuit that called the Texas map unconstitutional and racially discriminatory. They claimed that Republicans dismantled coalition districts—areas where Black and Latino voters collectively made up a majority. Republicans denied this outright. State Senator Phil King, who drafted the legislation, made it plain: he drew the lines based only on partisan advantage, not race. He declared, “I did not take race into consideration when drawing this map. I drew it based on what would better perform for Republican candidates.” The words were simple, clear, and hard to twist, yet Democrats chose to wring them out like wet laundry.

The lawsuit pointed to coalition districts, but the Trump administration’s Department of Justice had already set the stage. The DOJ argued that coalition districts were shaky ground, citing a 2024 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling said the Voting Rights Act does not allow distinct minority groups to join forces to claim a violation. Coalition districts might still exist, but the law does not demand them. In other words, the Democrats built their case on sand and then cried foul when the tide came in.

The new Texas map even included four majority-Hispanic districts, drawn with 2024 election data, reflecting a political reality Democrats hate to acknowledge: Hispanic voters are shifting toward the GOP. Instead of facing that truth, Democrats prefer to pretend lines alone change loyalty. But you can shift the fence, you cannot stop the cattle from moving where they choose.

Still unsatisfied, Democrats argued “malapportionment.” They claimed the mid-decade redistricting unfairly weighted votes because Texas’s population has grown nearly five percent since 2020. They leaned on legal fiction, saying states should not enjoy the assumption of fairness for ten years when they voluntarily redraw maps in between censuses. Yet mid-decade redistricting is perfectly legal. Their argument boiled down to one thing: they lost, so the game must have been unfair.

Theatrics followed. Texas House Democrats fled the state for two weeks, grinding legislative business to a halt. Their absence was not free—they racked up thousands in fines while Republicans waited patiently for them to return. When they finally crawled back, House Speaker Dustin Burrows ensured they would not escape again, ordering law enforcement to chaperone them during votes. It was a kindergarten solution for a kindergarten problem. Representative Nicole Collier refused to comply, staging a three-day sit-in on the House floor. She claimed the maps would harm her constituents, but her protest resembled more of a sleepover rebellion than a substantive defense of policy. When a child cannot win the game, they often flip the board and cry that the rules were unfair.

In the Senate, one Democrat tried to filibuster, planning a last dramatic stand. Republicans cut it short with a procedural move, forcing a vote along party lines. With that, the deal was done. The ink was set. The map became reality.

The irony is impossible to miss. Democrats, who gerrymander when it suits them, suddenly declared gerrymandering to be a moral sin because this time they were the ones on the losing end. California proved the hypocrisy by redrawing its own lines to carve out five new Democratic seats—yet cloaked the move in the language of virtue. They are like gamblers who call the house crooked only after their chips are gone.

This fight in Texas is not the end; it is the beginning of a nationwide clash. The White House has pressured states like Indiana and Missouri to follow Texas’s lead. Democratic governors in New York and Illinois have promised to fight back, though they have done little beyond shaking their fists. Federal courts will wrestle with the claims. The Supreme Court has already limited challenges to partisan gerrymandering, leaving racial gerrymandering as one of the last paths to attack maps. But with recent rulings chipping away at the Voting Rights Act, even that road looks narrower than ever.

So here we are. The Republicans in Texas played their hand boldly, and Democrats chose melodrama over strategy. They ran, they wept, they sued, and they staged floor protests. In the end, the map still passed. You cannot stop the rooster from crowing just because you dislike the morning sun.

And I say this plainly: Democrats’ cries of unfairness ring hollow when their own allies in California and elsewhere pull the same tricks. The truth is simple—redistricting is politics by another name, and politics has never been a game for the faint of heart. If Democrats wanted to fight, they should have stayed in the chamber instead of fleeing it. Power respects presence, not absence. Texas Republicans showed up, pressed the button, and claimed the prize. That is how the game is played.