News

JD Vance Warns Republicans Not to Scapegoat Young Americans Drawn to Socialism [WATCH]
News

JD Vance Warns Republicans Not to Scapegoat Young Americans Drawn to Socialism [WATCH]

/

Vice President JD Vance issued a blunt warning to Republicans on Thursday, telling the party that it cannot simply blame young Americans for socialism gaining ground.

If the GOP fails to address the economic pressures driving that appeal, Vance argued, Republicans will share responsibility for the consequences.

During an appearance on “The Will Cain Show,” Vance defended younger voters from the easy accusation that they are embracing socialism out of ignorance or entitlement.

Many are struggling to obtain the stable jobs, affordable homes, and family lives that previous generations viewed as ordinary parts of the American dream.

“My warning to my fellow Republicans would be: If we don’t get this right, don’t blame young people for being sympathetic to socialism. We’ve got to blame ourselves,” Vance told Fox News host Will Cain.

That is not an endorsement of socialism, but a demand that Republicans offer something stronger than another dusty lecture.

The warning arrives as socialist activists tighten their influence inside the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Socialists of America continues pushing candidates and policies that would drag the country further left while dressing government control in the language of fairness and compassion.

Michigan Democrat Abdul El Sayed and Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan recently captured important Democratic United States Senate primary victories. DSA member Francesca Hong, however, failed in her bid during Wisconsin’s Democratic gubernatorial primary.

Vance was clear about the ideology itself, describing socialism as “dangerous and destructive.”

His point was that condemning a disastrous political doctrine does not excuse Republicans from confronting the real economic frustration that is “feeding” its appeal among younger Americans.

Housing offers the clearest example of that frustration.

The median price of a single family home in the United States has climbed above $430,000, according to Redfin data analyzed by Forbes, leaving many younger workers wondering whether ownership will ever be within reach.

For previous generations, a home was not merely a roof and four walls.

It was a source of stability, a foundation for raising children, and one of the most reliable ways for ordinary Americans to build wealth without waiting for Washington to rescue them.

Socialist candidates have eagerly exploited the anger produced by rising prices and fading opportunities.

Their solutions would empower government, punish success, and eventually make scarcity worse, but their sales pitch becomes more persuasive when Republicans fail to demonstrate that conservative policies can produce tangible results.

Vance addressed struggling young Americans directly, telling them they deserve a government that removes barriers instead of piling on more costs.

“I would say to that young person that you as an American citizen deserve to have a good life in this country, and you deserve to have a government that is making it easier for you to start a family, for you to afford to get a good education, for you to have a good job, for you to afford a home,” he said.

That message reflects a practical strain of economic conservatism focused on whether citizens can actually build productive and independent lives.

Freedom sounds far more convincing when working people can afford groceries, save money, purchase homes, and raise children without feeling crushed by every monthly bill.

Vance said the Trump administration’s economic agenda is already producing gains, including “stabilized” housing prices.

He also pointed to trillions of dollars in new domestic investment that could create solid middle-class employment for younger workers and families across the country.

The vice president’s argument presents Republicans with both a political warning and a governing challenge.

Conservatives cannot permit Democrats to wreck affordability through inflation, regulation, reckless spending, and open border policies, then watch socialists pose as the heroic solution to damage created by the left.

At the same time, Republicans must resist the temptation to answer every anxious young voter with slogans and finger-wagging.

A generation facing enormous home prices, expensive education, and uncertain career prospects will judge the party by results, not by how loudly politicians recite economic theory.

“You don’t stop socialism by throwing slogans at people about the free market,” Vance said.

“As much as I love the free market, you stop socialism by making people’s lives better, and that’s what we’re trying to do every single day.”

WATCH:

That is the hard truth for the GOP.

Socialism remains a proven failure, but defeating it requires more than correctly calling it a failure, because Republicans must make prosperity visible, attainable, and real for Americans who increasingly fear the American dream is slipping away.

WATCH:

Based Tucson Grandma Draws Gun and Sends Brazen Ross Shoplifter Running [WATCH]
News

Based Tucson Grandma Draws Gun and Sends Brazen Ross Shoplifter Running [WATCH]

/

An elderly woman in Tucson, Arizona, became an instant internet sensation after allegedly drawing a handgun and chasing a suspected shoplifter from a Ross store.

Social media users quickly hailed her as an absolutely “BASED elderly woman” and a “badass grandma,” reflecting public fury over thieves who treat retail aisles like personal warehouses.

Video circulating online shows the suspected thief casually leaving the Eastside Tucson store with several bags of merchandise.

The store alarm blares in the background, but the man appears determined to keep walking as though nothing unusual is happening.

That is when the elderly bystander steps into the scene and confronts him.

She reportedly draws a handgun while attempting to stop his escape, delivering the kind of response that frustrated Americans rarely see from store employees who are ordered to stand aside.

Tucson Police confirmed that officers are investigating the incident as a shoplifting case.

Investigators are also reviewing the viral footage as evidence while continuing their effort to identify and locate the suspected thief.

Officers were unable to find the suspect after arriving at the store, and no arrests have been announced.

Police are asking anyone with information about the theft or the individual shown in the video to contact authorities.

The woman may have won plenty of applause online, but attorneys warn that her intervention could create serious legal trouble.

“It really depends on the details, but there is a statute that authorizes people to display or use a firearm to prevent certain crimes,” said Tucson criminal defense attorney Louis Fidel.

“Shoplifting is not one of those crimes.”

According to Fidel, pointing a firearm during a property crime could expose a bystander to an aggravated assault charge involving a deadly weapon.

That warning has only added to the frustration surrounding the episode.

Americans watch thieves stroll through stores with armfuls of merchandise, while the person willing to intervene may face more immediate legal scrutiny than the criminal who walked away.

Introducing a firearm into a retail theft can also create obvious dangers for customers, employees, the suspected thief, and the armed bystander.

A confrontation over merchandise can turn deadly within seconds, particularly when an untrained participant does not know whether the suspect is armed.

Retail chains have responded to that danger by establishing strict rules telling employees not to confront thieves.

“Large corporations and most of the small ones have told their employees, do not engage,” said Michelle Ahlmer, Executive Director of the Arizona Retailers Association.

“Their lives and their safety is more important to us than the product.”

That policy may protect workers from immediate violence, but it also leaves law abiding customers watching criminals walk away with little resistance.

Ahlmer said violence directed at loss prevention employees has increased across the retail industry.

She warned that customers who attempt to intervene can escalate a volatile encounter, even when their intentions are understandable.

“I think they’re just frustrated,” Ahlmer said regarding bystanders who step in.

“They see that prices are high, and every time somebody steals something, the result is prices go up.”

That frustration is hardly mysterious. Honest families pay for their purchases, follow the rules, and absorb higher prices while brazen thieves grab what they want and head for the exits.

The Tucson incident follows another local case in which witnesses intervened after a seventy year old man was knocked to the ground during an attempted restaurant robbery.

Those witnesses helped police locate the suspect, who was later arrested on an attempted robbery charge.

WATCH:

The difference between assisting police and confronting a thief with a firearm can carry enormous legal consequences.

Still, the viral reaction shows how thoroughly fed up the public has become with retail crime, weak deterrence, and a system that often seems quicker to warn good citizens than catch offenders.

Transgender American Flees Trump’s America, Finds Europe Worse, and Comes Back Humbled [WATCH]
News

Transgender American Flees Trump’s America, Finds Europe Worse, and Comes Back Humbled [WATCH]

/

A transgender American who fled the United States after President Donald Trump returned to the White House has come back to California after failing to secure asylum in the Netherlands.

The attempted escape ended with a blunt admission from the traveler that leaving America was a spectacular mistake.

Jane Michelle Arc, a 48 year old software engineer from California, departed for Europe in April 2025, claiming fear for personal safety because of gender identity.

Arc had lived in San Francisco and pointed to harassment, threats, and an encounter with a driver who allegedly threatened to kill her.

Upon landing at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport, Arc asked authorities how to seek asylum and was eventually transferred to the Ter Apel reception center.

The sprawling facility, which houses about 2,000 asylum seekers, has struggled for years with crowding, violence, and serious security problems.

The European refuge Arc imagined quickly collided with the reality inside the asylum system.

It did not take long for Arc to decide that Ter Apel and its surrounding area felt more dangerous than the country left behind.

“This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done,” Arc told The Guardian while staying at the facility.

Arc said fear in America had driven the drastic decision to pursue refuge overseas.

Arc also reported hostility from other asylum seekers because of transgender status and eventually became afraid to make ordinary trips beyond the center.

During an interview with Dutch broadcaster PowNews, Arc described a severe personal toll and warned that staying could create an immediate threat to physical safety.

“The situation I have in the US as a trans person, not good, right?” Arc said.

“But here, I will be hurt or killed.”

That grim assessment arrived during an especially troubled summer at Ter Apel.

WATCH:

Dutch News reported that aid groups temporarily halted their work after several fights, including two stabbings, hardly the welcoming European sanctuary that activists and political fantasists might picture from the comfort of an American city.

Dutch authorities added security guards and surveillance cameras while introducing measures aimed at preventing asylum seekers from being stranded outside during periods of overcrowding.

Those steps revealed just how strained the system had become, even in a nation often praised by the left as enlightened.

Arc eventually returned to California without receiving asylum protection.

The case formed part of an unusual surge in American applications after Trump resumed office, suggesting that a small group of Americans took partisan panic seriously enough to test whether Europe would validate it.

Dutch government data show that 76 Americans sought asylum in the Netherlands in 2025, up from nine in 2024 and 18 in 2023.

Of the 60 American cases decided during 2025, none produced a residence permit, according to figures reported by Dutch and European media.

Forty applications were rejected, while 20 concluded without a substantive decision.

The numbers offer a rather unforgiving reality check for those treating ordinary American political disputes as grounds for international refuge.

Arc had cited Trump administration policy on gender identity as one reason for leaving.

Soon after taking office, Trump signed an executive order directing the federal government to recognize two sexes, male and female, while his administration reversed several Biden administration policies centered on gender identity.

Dutch officials have said political developments in the United States do not justify a general assumption that LGBT Americans face persecution.

The government explained in a 2025 response to parliamentary questions that each asylum request must establish a credible individual fear of persecution or serious mistreatment.

For Arc, the grand asylum experiment ended exactly where it began, back in California.

Despite continuing criticism of conditions for transgender Americans, Arc concluded that life in the United States was preferable to remaining inside the Dutch asylum system.

“I did it because I was afraid for my life,” Arc said when explaining the departure.

Looking back after the failed bid and difficult stay, Arc called the choice “wildly stupid.”

Federal Appeals Court Hands Trump Massive Victory in Alien Enemies Act Fight [WATCH]
News

Federal Appeals Court Hands Trump Massive Victory in Alien Enemies Act Fight [WATCH]

/

President Donald Trump scored a major legal victory Thursday when the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a central lawsuit challenging his use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The ruling removes another courtroom obstacle from the administration’s effort to deport dangerous Venezuelan gang members.

The court considered the matter with its entire roster of active judges rather than relying on the smaller panel that previously addressed the dispute.

Judges concluded that the lawsuit could no longer proceed because the three men who originally brought the challenge had already been removed from the United States.

“The Supreme Court remanded this case to us when the three named petitioners were still in the country. But we have since learned that the government has removed them. Given this change, we conclude that the appeal is moot,” the judges wrote.

The court explained that there was no remaining petitioner eligible to receive relief and no certified class that could keep the litigation alive.

That left the judges without jurisdiction, regardless of how badly Trump’s opponents wanted another sweeping judicial roadblock.

“Given the lack of any named petitioners to whom we could grant relief in this appeal, and given that this case has never and does not now feature any class, we conclude that the appeal is moot. We therefore DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction,” the judges wrote.

WATCH:

Judge James Ho, who was appointed by Trump, filed a forceful concurring opinion supporting the president’s authority under the Alien Enemies Act.

His opinion offered a robust defense of presidential power in an area involving immigration enforcement, hostile foreign actors, and public safety.

Trump invoked the law as part of his campaign to remove members of Tren de Aragua, the violent Venezuelan gang that expanded its footprint inside the United States.

The administration has argued that the statute provides necessary authority to act against dangerous foreign gang members before they can cause additional harm.

Several district court judges had ruled against Trump’s use of the law, giving open border activists and their legal allies temporary victories.

A federal judge in Pennsylvania, however, became the first to conclude that Trump could invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Tren de Aragua members.

The legal battle later reached the Supreme Court, which temporarily blocked the administration from carrying out certain deportations under the statute.

In an unsigned order, the justices said targeted Venezuelans had not received enough time or information to challenge their removals through the courts.

“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the unsigned decision read.

The Supreme Court then returned the dispute to the Fifth Circuit for additional proceedings.

Before the full court considered the case, a three judge Fifth Circuit panel had voted against Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.

Thursday’s ruling did not broadly settle every legal question surrounding the statute, but it eliminated this particular appeal.

The dismissal also showed the practical limits of litigation built around petitioners who are no longer present and a case that was never certified as a class action.

For Trump, the outcome represents another significant victory in his broader struggle to restore serious immigration enforcement after years of chaos.

His administration has repeatedly argued that presidents must have meaningful tools to confront foreign gangs rather than wait for violent criminals to exploit legal delays.

The decision also leaves immigration activists without the relief they sought from this lawsuit. Washington’s legal resistance machine can file another stack of papers, but this appeal is finished, and the full Fifth Circuit made that unmistakably clear.

Gun Rights Groups Seize Monumental Victory as Judge Smashes Decades of Federal Restrictions [WATCH]
News

Gun Rights Groups Seize Monumental Victory as Judge Smashes Decades of Federal Restrictions [WATCH]

/

Gun rights advocates are moving quickly to capitalize on a federal court victory that dismantled decades of Washington restrictions on suppressors.

The ruling has already produced what activists describe as the first lawful transfers without National Firearms Act registration since 1934.

Gun Owners of America and Silencer Shop notified the Trump administration Thursday that they intended to begin transferring suppressors without the federal registration and approval process.

That bureaucratic maze had controlled such transactions for generations while threatening ordinary gun owners with severe criminal penalties.

WATCH:

Just after midnight Thursday, Brandon Herrera and Texas state Rep. Wes Virdell walked out of a firearms dealer in Leander, Texas, with suppressors obtained from Silencer Shop.

Gun Owners of America said the transactions marked a historic break from more than nine decades of federal control.

“This is the first time in 92 years that any gun owner has been able to do this,” Aidan Johnston, Gun Owners of America’s director of federal affairs, told Fox News Digital.

Johnston emphasized that the former penalties were hardly a minor paperwork inconvenience.

“Previously, this would have been punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine per violation. So, this was a big federal law. We took a really big bite out of it.”

Suppressors have become increasingly popular among hunters, recreational shooters, and other gun owners seeking to protect their hearing.

Despite Hollywood mythology and liberal panic, suppressors do not magically silence firearms, but they can reduce damaging noise and make shooting safer.

Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Georgia Republican who attended the midnight transfers, helped craft the legislation that prepared the ground for the court victory.

He called it “literally, the greatest Second Amendment win in the history of our country,” and described it as “a monumental day for the country and a monumental day for the Second Amendment.”

The federal government also appears unlikely to challenge the decision.

Clyde said Wednesday that he had received confirmation from the Trump administration that the Justice Department would not appeal, potentially allowing the ruling to stand without another round of federal resistance.

Gun Owners of America senior vice president Erich Pratt said the organization had promised its members that the fight would continue beyond the initial legislation.

The group is now putting that pledge into practice instead of waiting for Washington regulators to invent another excuse for delay.

“GOA fought to crush the NFA’s unconstitutional restrictions through the One Big Beautiful Bill, but we didn’t stop there. We promised to keep fighting until these restrictions were gone, and now our members are putting the historic victory into action,” Pratt said.

“The era of federal registration for constitutionally protected arms must end.”

WATCH:

The legal battle grew from the Republican reconciliation package passed in 2025.

That legislation initially sought broader relief from National Firearms Act restrictions involving suppressors, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and certain other weapons.

After the Senate parliamentarian blocked portions of the effort under reconciliation rules, the final One Big Beautiful Bill Act took another route.

President Donald Trump signed legislation reducing the longstanding federal making and transfer taxes for the affected weapons to zero dollars, effective January 1, 2026.

Gun rights organizations recognized the constitutional opening immediately.

On the same day Trump signed the law, Gun Owners of America, the Silencer Shop Foundation, and other plaintiffs sued the federal government, with fifteen states later joining the challenge.

Their argument was straightforward.

If Congress eliminated the tax that supposedly justified the registration system, then the government could no longer pretend the remaining restrictions were necessary to collect revenue.

“Congress didn’t fully repeal the law. They just reduced this 1934 tax from $200 to $0,” Johnston told Fox News Digital.

“And I think all of us could understand there’s no such thing as a $0 tax. It doesn’t raise any revenue. It’s not a tax.”

The Justice Department argued that other National Firearms Act taxes and congressional power over interstate commerce could support the remaining regulations.

That position did not persuade United States District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee who issued his decision on August 5.

Hendrix ruled that once Congress erased the making and transfer taxes, the regulations designed to help collect those taxes lost their constitutional basis.

He permanently blocked federal officials from enforcing the challenged requirements against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their members and customers.

The judge declined to issue a nationwide injunction, meaning the ruling does not automatically erase the restrictions for every person in the country.

Still, the first completed transfers show that the decision is producing concrete results rather than merely generating another stack of legal briefs.

The plaintiffs also argued that the registration and approval requirements violated the Second Amendment.

Hendrix did not resolve that broader claim, writing that “Efforts to render the NFA constitutional must come from Congress, not this Court.”

For gun owners who have watched federal agencies stretch old statutes into sprawling regulatory regimes, the victory is substantial. Congress reduced the tax to nothing, a federal judge followed the constitutional logic, and the Trump administration appears prepared to let the ruling stand.

The midnight transactions in Texas transformed that legal victory into reality.

After 92 years of federal registration, threats, fees, and red tape, two Americans exercised their rights without first begging Washington for permission.

Army Identifies Two Soldiers Killed in Tragic Texas Apache Crash
News

Army Identifies Two Soldiers Killed in Tragic Texas Apache Crash

/

The Army has identified the two 1st Cavalry Division soldiers killed when an Apache attack helicopter crashed during a maintenance test flight in Central Texas. Chief Warrant Officer 2 Deontre T. Huey and Warrant Officer Seth L. Olmstead died at the scene Wednesday.

Both aviators were assigned to Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment, 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division. Army officials publicly released their names Friday after the required family notifications had been completed.

Huey and Olmstead were flying an AH 64E Apache assigned to Fort Hood when the aircraft went down near Salado, Texas. The community is located about 30 miles southeast of the sprawling Army installation.

Officials said the soldiers were conducting a maintenance test flight when the crash occurred. Such flights are used to evaluate an aircraft after maintenance and ensure its systems are functioning properly before it returns to regular operations.

Emergency personnel responded to the crash site, but both soldiers were pronounced dead there, according to the Bell County Sheriff’s Office. The wreckage also sparked a major fire that complicated the emergency response and threatened the surrounding area.

Huey, 34, was from Killeen, Texas, the community immediately outside Fort Hood. He entered the Army in February 2014 as a motor transport operator and had served with the Fort Hood unit since February 2022.

Two Killed in Apache Helicopter Crash Near Fort Hood
A 1st Infantry Division AH-64E Apache helicopter flies to the Freedom Festival in Junction City, Kansas, on July 2, 2022. (Pfc. Dawson Smith /U.S. Army)

Olmstead, 25, was from Belton, Texas, another community near the installation. He joined the Army in January 2023 as a warrant officer candidate and had been assigned to the unit since October 2025.

Lt. Gen. Kevin D. Admiral, commanding general of Fort Hood and III Armored Corps, offered condolences to the families and fellow soldiers affected by the fatal crash. The loss has struck a formation with deep ties throughout Central Texas.

“Our hearts and deepest condolences are with the families of the Soldiers we lost Wednesday,” Admiral said. “The Army is a family, and a tragedy like this is felt throughout our formations and our community.”

Fort Hood officials said chaplains, support personnel, and other resources are being made available to soldiers following the deaths. The command is also focused on ensuring that the families receive assistance as they confront the painful days ahead.

“In the difficult days ahead, our priority is to ensure these families and our soldiers have the care and support they need,” Admiral said. “We are making all appropriate resources available to those affected by this loss.”

The crash ignited what the Bell County Sheriff’s Office described in a Facebook post as a “large fire that was burning out of control.” Flames spread across approximately 155 acres as crews worked to contain the blaze near homes and other structures.

Several nearby homes and buildings were threatened by the fire, officials said. One structure was lost, adding property destruction to an already devastating aviation accident, although authorities did not report additional deaths in the information released.

The Army has not publicly disclosed what caused the Apache to crash during the maintenance test flight. Determining whether mechanical failure, environmental conditions, human factors, or another issue played a role will require a careful examination of the aircraft and available flight information.

The tragedy comes amid a troubling series of military aviation accidents across multiple services. A B 52 Stratofortress recently crashed at Edwards Air Force Base in California, killing five airmen and three civilians.

Two Navy EA 18G Growler aircraft also collided in midair during a demonstration in Idaho. Other recent incidents include a Marine Corps F/A 18 Hornet crash during a training mission in Washington and an F 35B crash while landing in Southern California.

Each accident carries its own circumstances, and no evidence released so far connects them. Still, the losses reinforce the unforgiving risks military aviators accept during training, testing, demonstrations, and routine operations intended to keep America’s combat forces ready.

For the 1st Cavalry Division and the Fort Hood community, the focus now remains on Huey, Olmstead, and the loved ones they leave behind. Their names represent the human cost behind every military aviation loss and the dangers faced by those who climb into the cockpit.

War Department Set to Fund Sperm and Egg Freezing for Eligible Troops
News

War Department Set to Fund Sperm and Egg Freezing for Eligible Troops

/

The Pentagon will soon cover fertility preservation costs for certain service members before hazardous deployments or lengthy separations from their partners. The practical benefit recognizes an obvious reality: Military orders and combat injuries can upend family plans in an instant.

The Department of War is expected to launch the three year pilot in September, according to a notice scheduled for publication in the Federal Register. Eligible troops will be reimbursed for preserving sperm or eggs before qualifying deployments and separations.

The benefit was mandated by the fiscal 2025 National Defense Authorization Act. It will provide up to $500 each year for sperm retrieval and cryopreservation, while egg preservation services may be reimbursed up to $10,000 annually.

Eligibility includes active duty Department of War personnel who receive orders that qualify them for hazardous duty pay. Troops who expect to receive such orders within 120 days may also participate.

The program also covers service members geographically separated for at least 180 days from a “spouse, domestic partner or dating partner” because of military orders. That provision broadens access beyond combat deployments to recognize the strain created by extended military separations.

Military families and family planning advocates have spent more than a decade pushing for better fertility services. Their priorities have included sperm and egg preservation before combat deployments, in vitro fertilization, counseling and other advanced reproductive treatments.

The Bob Woodruff Foundation highlighted the issue during a specialized two day conference in 2014 focused on intimacy and family concerns among combat injured troops. Participants called for broader access to fertility counseling, gamete banking and reproductive treatment for wounded personnel.

The need was hardly theoretical. Nearly 2,000 troops suffered debilitating injuries to their groins or genital regions between 2000 and 2013, while roughly 307,000 service members experienced some form of head injury during that period.

Such wounds can affect fertility, hormone function and sex drive, creating consequences that persist long after a service member leaves the battlefield. Preserving reproductive material before deployment can therefore provide troops and their families with options if the worst occurs.

In 2016, then Pentagon chief Ash Carter announced plans to cover sperm and egg freezing for service members. That proposed pilot never materialized after President Donald Trump won the election later that year, leaving families to seek private assistance or pay the costs themselves.

Some military families have spent substantial sums on cryopreservation as a safeguard. In extreme circumstances, relatives have pursued sperm retrieval from dying or deceased loved ones to preserve the possibility of future children.

The parents of West Point Cadet Peter Zhu obtained their son’s sperm after he was fatally injured in a 2019 skiing accident. They argued in court that Zhu had expressed a desire to build a family someday and wanted to preserve that possibility.

Israel has also confronted the issue during the Gaza war. According to The New York Times, its military began offering families the option of retrieving sperm from deceased service members when officials delivered casualty notifications.

Since at least 2022, groups including the Military Family Building Coalition and Resolve: The National Infertility Association have offered free preservation services to some troops. Until this pilot, however, deploying service members had no comparable government assistance specifically dedicated to the procedure.

Participants may receive services through a military treatment facility with a reproductive program or select a civilian clinic. Because the Defense Health Agency cannot access military orders, commanders must validate eligibility and provide written confirmation before reimbursement can be approved.

Requests for reimbursement must be filed within 120 days after covered services begin, generally measured from the date of retrieval, a prescription or a laboratory procedure. Troops must provide itemized invoices and submit DHA Form 459.

Service members may qualify more than once during the three year pilot. Decisions involving storage, disposition or future use “are solely the responsibility of the covered member and outside the scope of the program,” according to the announcement.

Officials plan to evaluate participation, expenses, long term feasibility and effects on military readiness. Additional information about the new benefit is scheduled to appear in the Aug. 13 edition of the Federal Register.

Most Americans Still Don’t Know What Socialism Actually Is, And That’s Exactly How the Left Wants It [WATCH]
News

Most Americans Still Don’t Know What Socialism Actually Is, And That’s Exactly How the Left Wants It [WATCH]

/

Political commentator Kaizen D. Asiedu argued that many Americans have an inaccurate understanding of socialism, contending that public support for socialist policies is often rooted in confusion about what the ideology actually entails rather than an understanding of its economic structure.

Speaking during a recent discussion, Asiedu pointed to recent elections across Latin America, arguing that several countries have moved away from socialist or Marxist leadership after experiencing the results firsthand.

“So now, Colombia rejected a socialist. Peru rejected a socialist. El Salvador, Chile, Honduras, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, all rejected Marxist or socialist leadership, and Venezuela was destroyed by socialism.”

He contrasted those developments with what he sees as growing acceptance of socialism in the United States.

“Latin Americans are rejecting socialism after having tried it. So why are Americans accepting socialism, having never tried it?”

According to Asiedu, the answer begins with a misunderstanding of the term itself.

“Well, partially because most Americans don’t know what socialism is.”

He argued that many people incorrectly associate socialism with popular government programs.

“It’s not healthcare for all or affordable housing. Socialism isn’t a synonym for all the things I want, but I’m not getting in my capitalist country. It’s not a vibe.”

Asiedu then offered his definition of socialism.

“It’s an economic system characterized by collective or governmental ownership of the means of production. Means of production meaning infrastructure used to produce goods and services like factories, farms, and companies.”

He also defined capitalism, arguing that it is frequently misunderstood as well.

“Capitalism also isn’t a vibe. It’s not billionaires and corporations controlling politics. It’s not a synonym for all the things I hate about my country. It’s an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, aka the means of production.”

Asiedu compared economic systems to computer operating systems, saying both capitalism and socialism exist in multiple forms.

“Now, just like Mac versus Windows, there are different versions of capitalism and socialism.”

He pointed to Scandinavian countries as examples that are often incorrectly labeled as socialist.

“Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are less capitalistic than America, but they are still capitalist.”

According to Asiedu, private ownership remains the defining characteristic of those economies.

“Although they have a few exceptions to the rule, private companies own the means of production, not the government, in those countries.”

He argued that individual government programs should not be confused with an entire economic system.

“Now, you might like certain programs that socialism promises, like universal healthcare, but those programs aren’t tied to a specific operating system.”

Using another technology analogy, he continued:

“You can run Photoshop on Mac or Windows, just like you can have universal healthcare in socialism or capitalism.”

Asiedu said public understanding of socialism has declined over time.

“But it seems we as a people keep getting more confused about what socialism is.”

He cited polling data to support that claim.

“In 1949, 34% of Americans correctly identified socialism as government ownership of the economy. By 2018, only 17% did, and I suspect it’s even worse now.”

He added that, in his view, some political leaders also misuse the term.

“American politicians are confused, too. In 2015, Denmark’s Prime Minister had to correct Bernie Sanders and say, Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

Asiedu also referenced New York politician Zohran Mamdani.

“Zohran Mamdani is a democratic socialist. Democratic socialism is a version of socialism.”

He acknowledged that supporters of socialism often argue it has never been implemented correctly but questioned that argument.

“Now, you could argue that socialism just hasn’t been done right yet, and when every socialist experiment at the national level in the 20th century failed, and every experiment in the 21st century is failing, maybe the problem isn’t that socialism hasn’t worked in practice, it’s that it almost certainly can’t work in principle.”

He continued by arguing that repeatedly claiming future attempts will succeed despite past failures is not persuasive.

“And maybe the assertion that this time will be different isn’t optimism, it’s actually just unfalsifiability, where a theory cannot ever be contradicted by actual evidence.”

Despite his criticism of socialism, Asiedu said he believes capitalism has shortcomings that deserve attention.

“We have bugs in this version of capitalism that need to be fixed, principally that there is too much money in politics, that billions of dollars speak louder than millions of voices.”

He argued that socialist movements can serve a constructive role by encouraging reforms without replacing the broader economic system.

“And you know what? The socialists might create healthy pressure to fix those bugs. That’s good, but that’s different than changing the whole operating system.”

Asiedu concluded by arguing that history favors reforming capitalism rather than replacing it.

“Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, because when there’s never been a successful socialist country in history, and the countries who have actually experimented with it are abandoning it, the results start to speak for themselves. And lately, they’re speaking Spanish.”

WATCH:

Hochul’s Migrant Legal Giveaway Exposes Democrats’ Contempt for American Citizens
News

Hochul’s Migrant Legal Giveaway Exposes Democrats’ Contempt for American Citizens

/

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced Wednesday that the state will provide $7.25 million to cover legal expenses for approximately 1,400 unaccompanied migrant children facing removal proceedings, as reported by Townhall.

Hochul made the announcement during a press conference in Manhattan alongside New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and state Attorney General Letitia James.

The funding is expected to assist migrant children involved in immigration proceedings, including approximately 250 who are currently being held in detention.

When discussing the state’s decision to provide the funding, Hochul offered an emphatic response to critics, saying, “Damn right I did.”

The announcement followed the Trump administration’s decision to allow a federal contract involving a nationwide network of approximately 100 organizations that provide services to migrant children to lapse in July.

Under federal policy, children who enter the United States alone are generally placed under the care of the federal government.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, typically works to place those children with an adult sponsor. Sponsors can include a parent, relative or family friend.

The state funding is connected to legal representation provided to migrant minors during immigration proceedings.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, enacted during the George W. Bush administration, provides for legal representation for certain unaccompanied migrant children during deportation proceedings.

New York’s decision comes as immigration remains one of the most closely watched political issues in the country.

Hochul and other Democratic officials in New York have repeatedly supported expanded services for migrants, while Republicans have argued that state and federal resources should be focused more heavily on American citizens and legal residents.

The $7.25 million commitment represents a state-level response to the loss of the federal contract and is intended to prevent migrant children from being left without attorneys during their immigration cases.

The announcement also drew attention to the role of the Office of Refugee Resettlement in caring for unaccompanied minors.

The agency has faced scrutiny over the handling of migrant children during the Biden administration. Critics have raised concerns about the government’s ability to track children after they are released to sponsors.

Hochul’s decision is likely to add another layer to the ongoing debate over how much state governments should spend addressing the consequences of illegal immigration.

New York has been among the states and municipalities that have devoted significant public resources to migrant-related services during the recent surge in arrivals.

The governor’s announcement also comes after a dramatic reduction in illegal border crossings following the return of President Donald Trump to the White House.

The administration has made border enforcement and deportations central elements of its immigration policy.

The dispute over the proper role of government-funded legal assistance for migrants is unlikely to end with New York’s latest spending decision.

Supporters say legal representation is necessary to ensure children receive due process in immigration court.

Critics counter that taxpayers should not be expected to finance legal services for people who entered the country illegally while many Americans struggle to afford basic legal assistance themselves.

For New York, however, the policy is now clear: The state will spend millions of dollars helping approximately 1,400 migrant children navigate immigration proceedings, including those being held in detention.

The funding places New York among the jurisdictions continuing to provide state-level support for migrants as Washington takes a different approach to immigration enforcement.

Math vs. Marxism: Will Cain Runs the Numbers on the DSA’s Insane Agenda [WATCH]
News

Math vs. Marxism: Will Cain Runs the Numbers on the DSA’s Insane Agenda [WATCH]

/

Fox News host Will Cain argued that the Democratic Socialists of America’s policy platform carries a price tag that far exceeds what could be funded through higher taxes on corporations and wealthy Americans, contending that the math ultimately points to the middle class bearing the cost.

During a recent segment, Cain broke down what he described as the estimated costs of several proposals commonly associated with the Democratic Socialists of America, including universal health care, reparations, a federal jobs guarantee and housing initiatives.

“Let’s start with that price tag. How do you get to $200 trillion over 10 years? The number is absolutely staggering, and it breaks down into categories. It breaks down into promises on the DSA’s wish list.”

Cain began with what he identified as the projected cost of universal health care.

“Let’s start with universal healthcare. Over a 10-year period, that’s estimated to cost as much as $75 trillion.”

He then turned to reparations.

“But we don’t stop there. There’s been talk of reparations. Add another $28 trillion to the wish list.”

Cain also discussed a federal jobs guarantee.

“How about a federal jobs guarantee? That’s $60 trillion potentially at the high end over 10 years.”

He included housing proposals in his calculation as well.

“Now if you add this all up, including housing for all, which is another $17 trillion, then you get to a high estimate of $211 trillion over 10 years. Bringing up the question again, who pays?”

According to Cain, supporters of the Democratic Socialists of America argue that the necessary revenue would come from taxing corporations and wealthy individuals.

“Now the DSA, it has an answer: the rich, big corporations.”

Cain then argued that those revenue sources would not generate enough money to fund the proposals.

“So let’s look at reality. This lays out the high-end and the low-end estimates of the DSA’s wish list costs.”

He said eliminating corporate profits through taxation would still fall short.

“Now, if you taxed over a 10-year period all corporate profits, so you zeroed out corporate profits over a 10-year period, you’d bring in about $35 trillion.”

Cain also addressed taxes on high-income Americans.

“If you taxed the wealthiest in America at a rate of 40%, you’d bring in another half trillion dollars.”

He continued by discussing the effect of confiscating wealth.

“If you confiscated all of their wealth, well, you’d bring in about $6.6 trillion.”

Cain then explored an even higher tax scenario.

“But I want to go even further, because anybody on the left or a member of the DSA’d be saying, I don’t want to stop at 40%. So let’s go further. What if you did what America did in the mid-1950s and 60s, and you implemented a tax rate of over 90%?”

According to Cain, even that would not close the gap.

“We would still then only bring in about $2 trillion over 10 years.”

Cain argued that the proposals ultimately collide with economic reality.

“So, what the DSA’s wish list, its empty promises run into is the hard, cold reality of math.”

He said that, in his view, even the lower estimates remain well beyond available revenue.

“You add all that together, and you come nowhere near. Forget the high estimate of $200 trillion, but the low estimate of $71 trillion.”

Cain concluded that the burden would ultimately shift to middle-income Americans.

“So where do you go for the money? They go where they always end up going for the money: to you, the middle class.”

He also argued that implementing the proposals would dramatically increase the size of the federal government relative to the nation’s economy.

“And then, of course, it’s what do we look like? What’s the country look like? What size of government are we dealing with? Right now, our government spending amounts to about 40% of gross domestic product.”

Cain said his estimates indicate government spending would increase substantially under the DSA’s proposals.

“All right? The DSA’s wish list agenda on that low-end projection would take it to 57% of GDP. But the high-end projection of more than $200 trillion over 10 years means that government spending would be 92% of GDP.”

He concluded by arguing that such a change would fundamentally alter the nation’s economic system.

“That is a lot of government. That is actually a fundamental rewriting of the American economy and a fundamental rewriting of America.”

WATCH:

 


Scroll to Top