Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos.

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for the Daily Signal.

There’s been a lot of news lately about the university’s higher education crisis, and universities are now competing for students rather than students competing with each other to get into universities.  

Maybe the elite universities still, because of their brand name, although they’ve suffered a great deal and their admissions reflect that and their applications are down, they’ll always make it—the seven or eight so-called top tier. 

But most four-year colleges and universities are in a bad strait. And why is that? 

First of all, it’s demography. During the 1960s, the fertility rate reached, in 1960, about 3.6 children per family. It’s recovered a little bit the last three years, but it’s 1.7. So, the cohort of 17-, 18-, and 19-year-olds is less than half. 

So, they are competing for a much smaller pool of young people. 

The second thing that’s really turned people off is that tuition has increased, over the last 50 years, three times more than the annual rate of inflation.  

Now, why is that? 

Mostly it is because of administrative bloat.  

Where I work, at Stanford University, The Wall Street Journal recently suggested that if you count graduate and undergraduate students at Stanford, and you count administrators and their staff, there is roughly one administrator or staffer for every student. 

This is because the university became in loco parentis. It said, “I am a parent, and I’m going to monitor the 360-degree, 24/7 life of a student. If he’s not happy, we’re gonna deal with it. If somebody accuses you of sexual harassment, we’re gonna deal with it. We’re gonna deal with everything, and we’re going to try to be political. 

“Our job is not disinterested, inductive education. It is to turn out left-wing people who can offer an antithesis to the family, nuclear family, the community, religion, etc. We believe society is biased with corporations and family and religion, and we’re gonna offer an antithesis.

That turned off people, believe me. 

Professors themselves are unique in American life. Nobody else has the same conditions of employment. After six years, they get tenure. Outside the exclusive schools, it’s almost automatic. Where I worked at the [California State University], I think 90% of assistant professors got tenure. 

Release time is very common now. You can say, “I want to be a part-time administrator,” or “I am tutoring,” or “I have a special project,” and you can get a reduced teaching load. 

Remember that the teaching load has gone way down. In most colleges, it’s between two and four courses a year. A year. 

Maybe not at the CSU, but even CSU has gone down on many campuses. That’s the California State University system, the largest in the world. It has gone from four classes to three classes a semester. 

And part of the way that they finesse that was when you increase the administrative budget and you increase release time for full-time faculty and decrease teaching, you hire part-time, temporary lecturers, and you exploit them. 

You pay them about 40% per class of what you would pay a full or associate professor. You don’t really give them the same type of benefits. And at some universities, the percentage of courses that are taught by part-time, exploited lecturers is getting up to 40% and even 45%. 

Another thing that turned the public off about these universities: They grant-gouge. 

We’re starting to learn that, say, on NIH grants, many of these universities were charging not 10% or 15% commission, but 40% and even higher. 

In other words, if a professor got a million-dollar grant from the federal government, a university would step in and say, “Well, you’re using your office or your phone or your lab, so we want 40% of it.” 

And they use that because the whole system is financially unsound. Financially unsound. 

Largely because, again, of administrative bloat and the creation of centers and programs that have nothing to do with education but form a huge overhead. 

Another thing that got people very worried is another way they financed this debt, expanded their administrators, and cut back on teaching: They brought in over a million foreign students. 

And unlike American students, there are no scholarships. There are no discounts. Foreign students pay the premium, if not a little bit higher tuition. 

Now, the problem with that is when you bring in 300,000 students from China or over 200,000 from the illiberal Middle East, and when you look at the origin of most of these students, they are from autocratic and illiberal places in Africa, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere, particularly the Middle East and China. 

Then you start to politicize the student body, and you can see what happened after Oct. 7. 

We had enormous demonstrations, often led by foreign students, chanting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” That’s essentially code for destroying the state of Israel. 

And we had violent demonstrations often led by people from the Middle East. 

And, of course, the FBI suggests that 1% to 5% of Chinese students are actively engaged in espionage. 

The public knows this, and they’re not fond of that idea—that sometimes their children don’t get into school because the universities are letting in foreign students because they pay a premium. 

DEI did damage—diversity, equity, inclusion. 

The idea that the universities, despite state referenda and Supreme Court decisions and the Civil Rights Act, were deliberately, consciously, insidiously using race as a barometer to admit people, to hire people, to retain people, and to promote people on the basis of their superficial appearance, their sexual orientation, or their gender. 

It was entirely anti-meritocratic. It was like the Soviet commissar system. It was like the McCarthy period. 

If you wanted to get a job at a university, you had to fill out, in most cases, a diversity statement. 

And believe me, if you wrote on that diversity statement, “Honestly, I believe that DEI is anti-meritocratic,” you were not going to be hired. 

There’s another reason that these universities are in crisis. 

The federal government came in and guaranteed student loans. 

Once they did that, the universities jacked up the rate of tuition, as I said, three times higher on an annual basis than the inflation rate. 

So the government came in and said, “You guys can loan students money, and we will back it up, so they will pay you back with federally guaranteed dollars.” 

And we know now that there’s a 30% to 35% non-compliance rate, that people are either late or have defaulted. 

And so, when you have $1.7 trillion in debt and you see that the debt is increasing because the students are not graduating in four years—the average graduation now is six years. 

About 30% to 40% of people who enter college do not ever graduate. 

But the whole thing is subsidized by loans from banks that are guaranteed by the federal government, and that gave a green light for universities to offer these crazy courses that nobody wants—peace studies, race studies, Black studies, environmental studies, etc., studies—because the students took them and the government paid for them. 

And nobody worried about whether they graduated or whether employers found a well-educated and empirical product coming out with a B.A. 

Finally, we’re short a couple million plumbers, electricians, blue-collar carpenters, sheet rockers, and roofers. 

These are very important to the economy of the United States. 

But when these universities said, “Come to us, and maybe even if you don’t graduate—40% of you—or if those who do average six years, and even though you’re gonna run up a big debt, you can take psych and sociology. It’s a good time to kind of float around, live in your basement, and have a good time in your 20s.” 

But the economy answered back: We’re wasting kids’ formative years in their 20s. 

We need master electricians. We need oil workers. We need skilled carpenters. 

And the irony is that if you graduate with a bachelor’s degree in psychology or sociology versus being a master electrician at the age of 22, the electrician these days is going to be making $100,000-plus, and the sociology B.A., or the person with two or three years of psychology, is either going to be unemployed or not using that education at all in employment. 

Or, if he is hired, he will be making half of what the electrician or the roofer or the carpenter makes. 

Add it all up, and the universities are in bad shape, and they’re in desperate need of coerced reform because they will not reform on their own. 

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

“Scroll less and live best” is the catchy message of the new 43-page report “Surgeon General’s Warning on the Harms of Screen Use.” The implicit message that spending hours doomscrolling is not the best way to live is practically common sense, yet easier said than done.

Published in May, the advisory enumerates a litany of statistics linking excessive screen use to poor developmental, mental and physical health, and educational outcomes in children and teens. The document is more than just a warning. It also provides common-sense recommendations in the form of “the 5 Ds” (discuss, do, delay, divert, and disconnect) to help families navigate their children’s healthy use of screens.

If the impact of previous surgeon general reports is any precedent, the new advisory could reshape common norms and practices of American households.

The “Surgeon General’s Warning on the Harms of Screen Use” joins a long list of influential surgeon general reports, including one that transformed American health over 60 years ago: the “Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health.” The 1964 report linked cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other poor health outcomes, launching one of the most important public health campaigns. Since then, cigarette smoking rates have fallen 73% among U.S. adults, avoiding an estimated 8 million American premature deaths.

Given that 97% of Americans own a smartphone and 81% of parents and 57% of children spend between four and 12 hours a day online, the latest surgeon general’s report could transform Americans’ relationship to their screens if they heed its advice.

Like the 2023 advisory on social media and youth mental health, the advisory on screens is less revelatory as it is confirmative and timely. Summer months for families means kids are at home with more free time: the perfect time to create a family media plan or even go on a digital detox.

For parents who are unbothered by their children’s screentime, consider this statistic from the report: “By adolescence, children may spend more time on screens than sleeping or attending school.”

The report’s emphasis on the role of families and responsibilities parents have in shaping practices in their home is noteworthy. The advisory urges families to “be present in the moment,” “connect with children without a distraction,” and “delay screen time for as long as possible.”

The report encourages parents to model healthy screen habits themselves, treating families not only as regulators of children’s digital practices, but also as their primary guides to developing healthy technology habits. This recognition is critical. Acknowledging the household’s role in shaping digital citizenship is vital to developing holistic, family-centered policies.

Policies regarding children’s technology use should reflect an existential truth: technology should be shaped to serve the home; the home should not be shaped to serve technology. Parents hoping to form a well-ordered household can look at the advisory’s suggestions as a basic starting point to achieve that vision.

While the advisory does not implement policy or regulations, its data-driven safeguards and practices rightly center on the institution which most impacts children—the family.  

However, it’s not fair for parents to bear the brunt of this fight. In addition to families, the report provides recommendations to schools, health providers, researchers, policymakers, and technology companies. Without proper guardrails, tech companies will continue to exploit people’s fallible ways, monopolize attention, and influence the minds of children, all of which serves technology over humans.

The surgeon general’s warning does not condemn all technology digital screen time. It recognizes that connecting with friends and family members, researching interests, and learning new skills and hobbies are joyful experiences—ones that serve humans. But it also fundamentally acknowledges that living real life means disconnecting from screens. In other words, “scroll less, live best.”

A Florida law disqualifying 18- to 20-year-olds from legal concealed carry violated the Second Amendment, a Florida appeals court ruled Wednesday.

“Eighteen- to 20-year-olds can defend the country without restriction but can only utilize their Second Amendment right to self-defense with severe restrictions,” the three-judge panel stated in its opinion.

Police arrested 18-year-old Jaylen Tyrus Eubanks in 2024 for carrying a concealed firearm in violation of Florida law that restricts licensing provisions of concealed carry to eligible United States citizens 21 years or older.

A trial court denied Eubanks’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit, ruling that “licensing provisions for concealed carry are designed to ensure that only law abiding, responsible citizens are permitted to carry concealed firearms.”

Eubanks pleaded nolo contendere and appealed the court’s decision to deny dismissal, which was addressed by the Florida 4th District Court of Appeals.

The state attorney’s office argued against the motion to dismiss, claiming there was “nothing inherently unconstitutional about requiring a person to qualify for a permit to carry a concealed firearm or carefully restricting a few citizens from carrying a concealed firearm because of a concern for the public safety.”

The state attorney’s office also claimed that the Founders defined adulthood as beginning at 21, not 18, and that 18-to-20-year-olds commit a disproportionate amount of firearm violence.

The appellate court acknowledged the Founders’ understanding of adulthood. However, the judges argued that courts should not restrict the understanding of “adults” to the Founders’ interpretation. Similarly, the courts do not restrict the understanding of “arms” to muskets or flintlock pistols, which is how “arms” would have been understood at the founding.

“The general understanding in our present world [is] that 18 is the age used to mark passage into adulthood,” the opinion reads.

The court also addressed the state attorney’s claim that 18-year-olds’ ability to conceal carry causes a “concern for the public safety.”

“No historical analogue presented would place 18- to 20-year-olds in the same category as felons, the mentally ill, or domestic violence offenders,” the judges stated.

The judges also cited the Militia Act of 1792, which stated that “all able-bodied men” were required to enroll in the militia “upon turning 18.”

Above these reasons, the court decided the ban clearly violated the Second Amendment.

“In this case, the inability of law-abiding adults aged 18 to 20 to use concealed carry available to all law-abiding adults 21 and older would certainly classify as a hindrance and, as such, an infringement of their Second Amendment rights,” the panel stated.

The court granted Eubanks’ motion to dismiss his conviction and declared the Florida rule unconstitutional.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed the law in April 2023 as part of an expansion of constitutional carry.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Sen. Rick Scott introduced a bill designed to end the Optional Practical Training visa program, which incentivizes employers to hire foreign students.

The Florida Republican’s Prioritizing American Talent Act would prohibit Department of Homeland Security funding from being used to help foreigners secure employment in the U.S.

The Optional Practical Training program, created in 1992, allows international students to remain in the United States to work for nearly four years after graduation. Employers receive a tax break for hiring the graduates under the program, which some say gives foreign nationals an advantage over U.S. citizens. 

Scott has said the OPT program creates a national security risk by allowing Chinese students to access sensitive technology and cutting-edge research at top U.S. companies and universities before returning home.

“We need to make more jobs available for hardworking Americans, not foreign workers who come over to exploit the system—including thousands from Communist China,” Scott said in a statement to the Daily Signal. “This is why we need to end the Optional Practical Training Program, which has allowed employers to import foreign labor under the guise of job training. That’s why I am proud to introduce this bill to end it.”

While the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to end the program by issuing a new rule, President Donald Trump’s administration has not publicly begun the rulemaking process, leading some conservative members of Congress to propose their own bills to end the program.

“We need to make sure that Americans who work hard and play by the rules still have the chance to live their American dream,” Scott said.

Scott told the Daily Signal that people are “shocked” whenever he talks about OPT.

“It makes you mad,” he said. “We all pay our taxes, and then we create incentives for our companies in our country to hire foreign workers.”

“This should happen today, one, to help Americans get jobs, and number two, we got to get rid of this for the fraud,” he said. “Number three, we’ve got a lot of people here from Communist China, they’re spying on us and stealing things from our companies.”

The SAVE America Act must be passed by the Senate as soon as possible, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said on Wednesday.

Roberts appeared on “The VINCE Show,” hosted by Vince Coglianese, and said he supports President Donald Trump pushing for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to include the SAVE America Act.

“We’ve been saying for months it may be the only way to get the SAVE America Act passed is to attach it to FISA, and so I applaud the president for what he’s doing,” Roberts said.

FISA allows the government to surveil foreigners without a warrant, and it expired last Friday after Congress failed to pass an extension of the bill.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., called it “unrealistic” to bundle the two bills, and said he will only move to pass FISA once he’s confident there are enough votes.

“How Thune described the situation and the rules of the Senate yesterday are wrong—it’s just utterly wrong,” Roberts said. “The way you do this is to actually force debate. And ultimately, as Mike Lee has outlined so well for so many months, there is a way forward.”

Vice President JD Vance told the Daily Signal today that the Senate should at least attempt to pass the legislation.

“Why don’t we try, and at least force people to vote against it,” he said. “One of the things that sometimes frustrates me about the legislative process is that people will go into it saying this isn’t possible, therefore we’re not even going to try. Well, let’s actually see, let’s try it, and if it’s not possible, then let the people put their name on it.” 

The SAVE America Act should not be so highly debated, according to Roberts. It’s necessary to secure election integrity.

“All this is is voter identification and making sure that you’re a citizen to be voting in our elections,” Roberts said. “It’s not controversial.”

Voting to pass the SAVE America Act will only help senators who are up for reelection, according to Roberts.

“The great thing about this is—just to paint a positive picture for senators who may be worried—is, it’s really popular. The conservative base will turn out in the midterms if you go do this,” Roberts said. “This is one of the reasons we need to do it.”

Heritage is “working feverishly” to pressure the Senate into voting on the SAVE America Act alongside FISA, according to Roberts.

“We’re totally with the president,” Roberts said. “We need to get this done. We need to get it done this summer.”

After the Senate failed to advance legislation backed by President Donald Trump, congressional Republicans are moving to attach voter ID provisions to must-pass bills such as the National Defense Authorization Act and a reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The SAVE America Act, authored by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and to show ID when casting ballots. The bill has passed the House twice this year but has stalled in the Senate.

“No more delays,” Roy wrote on X on Thursday. “No more excuses. No more math problems. Pass Rep. Roy’s SAVE America Act!”

Despite calls from Trump and support from many Republicans, and overwhelming public support for voter ID, the Senate has not taken up the measure. Lawmakers have also declined to eliminate the 60-vote threshold—known as the filibuster—which would allow the bill to pass with a simple majority.

During a Thursday press conference, Vice President JD Vance told Daily Signal White House Correspondent Elizabeth Mitchell that Senate leadership has been reluctant to pursue changes such as abolishing the filibuster, urging lawmakers instead to allow a vote.

“How many American senators know that the American people love the Save America Act because they believe in voter ID, but how many of those same senators don’t want to vote for it because they know that the radical elements within their own party would punish them for it?” Vance told the Daily Signal.

“One of the things that sometimes frustrates me about the legislative process is that people will go into it saying, ‘This isn’t possible, therefore we’re not even going to try.’ Well, let’s actually see. Let’s try it. And if it’s not possible, then let the people put their name on it.”

In response, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., pledged to pursue a strategy of attaching the SAVE America Act to must-pass legislation to force Senate action. That approach has been discussed in Republican circles as a pathway to enact the bill after it stalled as standalone legislation.

“This is why I will be offering an amendment to place it on the NDAA and if that fails, it will have to be on FISA,” Luna wrote on X, responding to a report that Republican senators were divided over advancing Trump’s agenda.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s office has disputed claims that Republicans are deliberately blocking the legislation.

In a separate post, Luna criticized the Senate’s handling of the bill.

“The Senate has openly declared disdain for the American people,” she wrote. “The House must place the SAVE America Act on the NDAA. If this fails, then it must go on FISA.”

Trump has also weighed in, signaling he would oppose moving forward with surveillance legislation absent election reforms.

“For the good of the nation, and for the people of our country,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday, he would not support a FISA bill without inclusion of the SAVE America Act. Luna responded, “No Save America. No FISA.”

Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., echoed that position, saying he supports tying the legislation to must-pass measures.

“I’m 100% with @POTUS,” Tuberville wrote on social media. “Any FISA extensions MUST include the SAVE America Act.”

He later added that the Senate should halt other legislative action until the measure is passed.

“The Senate shouldn’t be doing ANYTHING until we pass the SAVE America Act,” Tuberville wrote. “Election security is the NUMBER ONE issue leading up to the midterms.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center has announced its next president and CEO amid a federal indictment into alleged fraud regarding payments to members of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ryan P. Haygood, who serves as president and CEO of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, will formally join the SPLC in August, the center announced Tuesday.

“I am humbled and honored to join the SPLC’s incredible team and stellar board at this pivotal moment,” Haygood said.

Here are five things to know about Haygood and the SPLC.

1. What Is the SPLC?

The SPLC gained its reputation by suing the Ku Klux Klan into bankruptcy, but today, it puts mainstream conservative and Christian nonprofits on a “hate map” with Klan chapters.

The SPLC also faces federal charges for allegedly funding the very hatred it claims it exists to oppose. The SPLC allegedly reimbursed Klan members for a cross-burning and paid an organizer of the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville. The SPLC admits that it paid members of white supremacist groups, but claimed those payments were part of an informant program that opposes the groups.

The indictment makes sense because the SPLC exaggerates how hateful America is to raise money on combating that hate.

In addition to publishing the “hate map,” the SPLC runs an education program called “Learning for Justice.” The program has repeatedly defended critical race theory (a lens of viewing history that teaches students to deconstruct American society on the premise that it is systemically racist), while the “hate map” attacks the theory’s opponents.

2. Critical Race Theory Proponent

Haygood has repeatedly advocated for the claim that America is still systemically racist, despite the civil rights movement’s progress.

In 2021, he described the mission of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice as “to topple load-bearing walls of structural inequality” using “cutting-edge racial justice advocacy to build reparative systems that create wealth, transform justice and harness democratic power.” He claimed the COVID-19 pandemic “exposed the pre-existing and deeply embedded cracks of structural racism” in New Jersey’s foundation.

In February 2024, he claimed that the $300,000 racial wealth gap in New Jersey “reflects something inherently wrong with the system in which we operate, going back to slavery, which shaped every aspect of our founding and every aspect of our present-day reality.”

3. Reparations

Under Haygood’s leadership, the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice created the New Jersey Reparations Council.

The council published a report in June 2025 calling not just for direct payments to black people, but also comprehensive policy change.

“[B]ecause slavery harmed both enslaved and free Black people, and because segregation and institutional racism have harmed descendants of enslaved people as well as Black people who arrived in New Jersey well after slavery, all Black people in New Jersey are eligible for reparations,” the report states. It claims that “the only way to close the racial wealth gap” is “through direct payments to Black individuals … in tandem with transformational policies that change systems.”

These “policy remedies” include: a government entity to oversee reparations; reforms to expand “democracy” such as lowering the voting age to 16 years old for non-federal elections; passing a constitutional amendment “guaranteeing a right to full employment”; increasing the minimum wage; creating programs to prioritize hiring racial minorities in medicine; cutting carbon emissions on the basis that highways were historically constructed to go through black neighborhoods so “vehicles pose a greater threat to the health of Black communities”; establishing a government-created legal defense fund to institutionalize lawsuits against “polluters”; and shifting funds away from police and toward “non-law enforcement, multidisciplinary response teams.”

4. Opposing Voter ID

Before joining the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, Haygood served as deputy director of litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund.

According to his institute profile, Haygood “led LDF’s successful challenge to Texas’ racially discriminatory photo ID law,” which Haygood argued was an “unconstitutional poll tax.”

In 2011, Texas passed Senate Bill 14, which requires all in-person voters in the Lone Star State to present a valid photo ID when voting. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder objected to the law, claiming that it violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because it would disproportionately affect black voters.

While a federal district court upheld Holder’s objection, the Supreme Court later ruled in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) that the formula for Section 5 was unconstitutional. After the voter ID law went into effect, voter turnout actually increased in Texas, even in urban counties with large minority populations.

5. Haygood’s Faith

Haygood presents his Christian faith publicly. His LinkedIn profile references Micah 6:8, which states that God requires people to “do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.” His profile describes him as “saved by God’s grace,” and cites 2 Timothy 1:7, in which St. Paul writes that “God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and a sound mind.”

Haygood and his wife reportedly mentor young people through C.H.O.S.E.N., a Newark-based group that “seeks to prepare young people for purpose-driven living by developing and supporting spiritual growth, character, educational excellence, leadership, advocacy, and community service.”

The SPLC may have chosen Haygood as CEO in part to address accusations that the SPLC is anti-Christian. Haygood’s faith arguably does not answer this charge, however, because the SPLC still demonizes traditional Christian doctrine on marriage and sexuality as “hateful.”

The fate of Virginia’s two-year state budget, which is scheduled to take effect on July 1, is in the hands of Democrats who control both houses of the Legislature and the governor’s mansion, even as the party remains divided over the tax treatment of data centers.

State Sen. L. Louise Lucas vowed that “there is not going to be a government shutdown.” Speaking to WTKR in Virginia Beach on Wednesday, she added, “As soon as I can get in the car, I’m on my way back to Richmond. We will have a budget.”

It was always obvious that Democrats were going to unite, of course, which Daily Signal contributor Joe Thomas pointed out on Wednesday. However, the months of debate have made it a rough first year for Gov. Abigail Spanberger as the party dickered over what is the most basic facet of governing: delivering a budget.

Lucas is president pro tempore of the Senate and a staunch opponent of a controversial retail sales and use tax exemption that encourages companies to build data centers in Virginia. She hasn’t been willing to move ahead with a budget that maintains it.

“Companies worth trillions of dollars are whining about paying their fair share,” Lucas insisted at an appearance in Chesterfield County on Tuesday. “We need to make sure these centers aren’t doing harm to our communities.”

She has since proposed an impact fee for data centers, which might generate as much as $1.7 billion over the next two years.

State Sen. Mamie Locke, a Democrat from Hampton, said on Tuesday that the tax break is too expensive and should be repealed. When it was implemented, “the impact was supposed to be $1.5 million per year,” she said. “Now what is the impact? $2.9 billion a year and growing.”

For their part, leading Republicans also oppose the data center exemption. “I am somebody who thinks we need to get rid of the data center tax break, because I don’t think we need to be giving $2 billion a year to huge AI big tech firms,” state Sen. Glen Sturtevant told the Daily Signal. “It’s ultimately Virginians who pay for that in higher electric bills.”

Lucas has been barnstorming the state on what is billed as a “listening tour.” Tuesday’s stop was hosted by state Sen. Mike Jones, who told the crowd at Manchester Middle School that they would hear from “people from across the spectrum” about the issue.

However, all the invited speakers—including educators, a meteorologist, and county government officials—spoke in opposition to data centers.

“I’m not anti-data centers,” Jones said. “But I am pro-money and believe everyone should pay their fair share.” Earlier in the day, Jones was reportedly asked to leave an event where Gov. Abigail Spanberger was hosting a ceremonial bill signing, perhaps because of his support for Lucas’ visit.

The House of Delegates released a proposal late last week that would balance the budget and would also retain the tax break, which lawmakers drafted years ago to encourage high-tech development in the state. The exemption isn’t set to run out until 2035.

The governor has said she supports maintaining the tax break. “I’m not going to break a contract that the state has signed,” she told Cardinal News last month. “What if it’s XYZ industry tomorrow or another one the day after. And so, it is essential that the commonwealth of Virginia not just keep its word but actually abide by contracts.”

Spanberger also criticized senators for not putting forward a concrete plan. “What we’re seeing on the Senate side is there is no written proposal,” she told WTKR on Monday. “There is no explanation of how it is that they intend to arrive at whatever or what it is they’re proposing relative to data centers.”

House Speaker Don Scott, who presides over a 64-36 majority, warned that Lucas has triggered “a civil war among Democrats.” Scott told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that Lucas is “refusing to negotiate a compromise.” Scott had planned to convene the House on Thursday but has shelved that until there is some movement among Democrats. The Senate is scheduled to meet next week.

The commonwealth of Virginia has not had a state government shutdown in modern history. Democrats, however, are bringing a shutdown closer than it has been in modern memory.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Vice President JD Vance wants senators to go on the record about the SAVE America Act, which would require voter ID and ban mail-in voting.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday demanded that the SAVE America Act be attached to a vote to extend a key government spy power. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., responded that such a tactic is “unrealistic.”

When asked by the Daily Signal on Thursday about Thune’s rejection of Trump’s plan, Vance said, “Why don’t we try?”

“Why don’t we try, and at least force people to vote against it,” he said. “One of the things that sometimes frustrates me about the legislative process is that people will go into it saying this isn’t possible, therefore we’re not even going to try. Well, let’s actually see, let’s try it, and if it’s not possible, then let the people put their name on it.”

Trump has said he will not support the extension of a key Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provision unless the SAVE America Act is attached to it. The act would mandate photo identification and proof of citizenship in federal elections and require local governments to regularly purge their voter rolls.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act grants the federal government authority to surveil foreigners without a warrant, but conservatives argue the program can be used for warrantless surveillance of Americans and data collection. Section 702 of the act expired last week after Congress failed to reach an agreement on warrantless searches.

Vance said the SAVE America Act is “good for the American people.”

“How many American senators know that the American people love the SAVE America Act because they believe in voter ID, but how many of those same senators don’t want to vote for it because they know that the radical elements within their own party would punish them for it?” Vance asked. “Let people go on the record and actually answer to the American people, which is why I think we should do exactly as the president said.”

The New York Times is investigating its controversial columnist Nicholas Kristof for his failure to disclose existing donor relationships, the newspaper has announced.

“Previous political donations made by some people Nick Kristof mentioned in his columns should have been made more clear to readers,” Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander wrote in an email to Semafor News. “Editors from Times Opinion are reviewing these articles to determine further clarifications for readers.”

On numerous occasions, Kristof wrote columns that appear to have promoted philanthropists such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation but failed to mention that those same philanthropists he promoted donated large sums of money to the columnist’s failed gubernatorial campaign in Oregon.

Kristof, who is responsible for placing The New York Times in a defamation lawsuit from the state of Israel over his published claims accusing Israel of training dolphins to spy and dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners, wrote favorably about Bill Gates and his nonprofit in a series of pieces between 2022 and 2025.

In one case, he touted Gates’ plan for fighting global hunger. In others, he cited statistics from Gates’ foundation, as well as his predictions on gene editing and his recommendation of an author. Kristof made no mention of the fact that Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates had donated a combined $100,000 to his campaign for governor.

When Kristof mentioned Council on Foreign Relations member Deborah Fikes in a 2024 column about North Korea, he did not say that she had donated $10,000 to his political campaign.

In a 2023 column about India’s economic growth, Kristof quoted McKinsey Global Managing Partner Bob Sternfels without noting that Sternfels and his wife donated a combined $5,000 to his campaign.

And when he quoted the late Harvard professor Joseph Nye in two separate columns, in 2023 and 2024, he failed to note that Nye had donated $1,000.

According to the Society of Professional Journalists, an organization that has been dedicated to “improving and perfecting journalism” for over 100 years, journalists are highly discouraged from promoting their political affiliations.

Journalists must “deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage,” the code reads.

The code then suggests that journalists should “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts,” while refusing “gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.”

“Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not,” the code adds.

Senate Republicans are refusing to follow President Donald Trump’s demands to add the SAVE America Act to the time-sensitive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act extension. Behind a closed-door GOP lunch on Wednesday, senators piled on the one colleague fighting hardest for the SAVE America Act.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., expressed their frustration with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who has been the most vocal senator supporting the election security legislation. The two Johns accused Lee of leading Trump to believe that the SAVE America Act is even a possibility.

Cornyn, ousted by Trump, doubled down on Lee. He called out his push and expressed his own doubt about the SAVE America Act on social media, writing, “Ds will never provide the votes.”

Trump and congressional conservative hawks like Lee have been arguing that the SAVE America Act is an essential piece of legislation that must be passed immediately. Trump stated firmly Wednesday morning that he “will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it.”

FISA grants the federal government authority to surveil foreigners without a warrant. House conservatives have their own concerns about how the authority can and has backfired on Americans and are pushing for reforms.

Section 702 of the act expired Friday after Congress failed to reach an agreement on warrantless searches. The administration and supporters of Section 702 claim it is crucial to ensuring American national security.

FISA has seemingly lost hope of a vote after Trump canceled Jay Clayton’s confirmation hearing to be director of national intelligence, keeping the controversial Bill Pulte in place.

Trump has pushed the SAVE America Act beyond its original provisions to include key conservative priorities and campaign promises. As it stands, it includes requiring photo identification to vote; proof of citizenship to vote; limits on mail-in ballots except for illness, disability, military service, or travel; a ban on men competing in women’s sports; and a prohibition on gender-transition surgeries for minors.

The election component of this bill has already passed the House.

Trump believes it is possible to pass these priorities by attaching them to FISA Section 702—something even Democrats agree needs to be extended. Many GOP members in both chambers agree with the president that this combination is possible, but not Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who controls the Senate schedule and voting pipeline.

Thune has refused to bring the SAVE America Act to the floor for a vote that Lee or Trump would find satisfactory. Lee has pushed to avoid the 60-vote filibuster threshold by continuing debate until the Senate reaches exhaustion and can pass the measure with a simple majority of 51 votes. Lee acknowledged, “We don’t have 60 votes,” but believes Republicans could reach 51.

Thune has voted to pass the SAVE America Act multiple times, but all failed to reach the 60 votes required.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a drug user could not lose his Second Amendment rights, in a case that put the ACLU and the National Rifle Association on the same side.

The court held that a federal law that automatically disarms someone who unlawfully uses a controlled substance is unconstitutional. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the unanimous court.

In the case of U.S. v. Hemani, a federal grand jury indicted Ali Danial Hemani, a marijuana user from Texas, in February 2023 for violating a law prohibiting firearm possession by a user of illegal drugs or a controlled substance. He sued to dismiss the indictment. 

The federal prohibition is part of the 1968 Gun Control Act. 

The government argued the law doesn’t infringe on the Second Amendment in part because of longstanding “habitual drunkard” laws that have been around since the Colonial era.

Those laws impose certain restrictions on individuals with addiction that could pose a danger to themselves or others, argued Sarah Harris, the principal deputy solicitor general, in oral arguments March 2 in the case.

The indictment said Hemani knowingly used illegal drugs while possessing a Glock 19 9mm pistol. The prosecution didn’t allege Hemani was intoxicated or using drugs at the time he possessed the firearm. Rather, prosecutors based their case on him being a regular drug user. 

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted Hemani’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal.

In his opinion, Gorsuch wrote the government sought to “automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm” based only on “showing he regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance.” 

He dismissed the government’s justification based on early American drunkard laws. 

“But the government’s analogy fails under every measure it asks us to consider: The historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways,” Gorsuch wrote.  “And faced with all these shortcomings in the government’s submission, we cannot say it has carried its conceded burden of showing its prosecution of Mr. Hemani complies with the Second Amendment.”

But the opinion added that “the court’s decision is narrow,” noting it “does not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm; other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms,” or “provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies.”

Government programs that claim to support families actually cut fathers out of the picture—and that results in broken families and higher poverty rates, according to Delano Squires.

The Heritage Foundation hosted the director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center on Tuesday to lead a panel discussion titled “Invisible Men: How Guaranteed Income Programs for New Moms Diminish Dads,” based on Squires’ latest book.

Squires and three other speakers addressed how welfare programs incentivize single-mother homes and how the black community, in particular, has suffered from a lack of attention to the importance of fathers.

“Fathers are not, by definition, an attachment,” Anthony B. Bradley of the Acton Institute said. “They are crucial to the thriving of children. And if we want healthy families, healthy communities, and healthy societies, we have a duty to invest in fathers.”

Most physical and behavioral issues are the result of absent fathers, according to Bradley. Fatherless children have a higher likelihood of juvenile delinquency, drug addiction, cancer, diabetes, and even an untimely onset of puberty. 

Martin Brown, former assistant secretary of health and human resources in Virginia, said that he discovered while working in welfare that his state’s social policies “limited the ability of the dad to even be in their home.”

“When you look at social policy, either the child or the mom is the recipient and not the family,” Brown said. “And so, we change the model from the child being the recipient of the government’s protection, or the mom being the recipient of the government’s largess, to the family unit, and by changing that goal, you’re going to change the outcomes, and so we focus on that as well.”

When a married couple files jointly, their tax breaks should increase rather than decrease, according to James Jackson, CEO of Rooted in Healing. The IRS should not financially incentivize single motherhood and having children outside of marriage.

“We shouldn’t just throw money at distress in the community,” Jackson said. “We should throw money in areas where we’re promoting good, where we’re promoting things like marriage, we’re promoting things like strong families.”

But government policy won’t be enough to promote long-lasting marriages and good fathers. People have to see good marriages so that they desire to emulate them and have an example to follow.

Bradley suggested that black families thrived the most in what he referred to as “‘The Cosby Show’ era” because television programs such as “The Jeffersons” and “Good Times” celebrated family life and demonstrated both the difficulties and the joys of marriage.

When author Joy Jones worked as a substitute elementary school teacher in Washington, D.C., in 2006, several boys said that when they grew up, they wanted to be fathers, according to Squires. But when Jones offered to bring in couples who could talk about marriage and having children, the boys were “unenthused.”

“One told her plainly, ‘We’re not interested in the part about marriage, only about how to be good fathers,’” Squires said. “Another boy explained their stance with five words and jaw-dropping candor: ‘Marriage is for white people.’”

In Washington, D.C., 77% of black children are born to unmarried parents, whereas 93% of white children are born to married parents, according to Squires. But it’s not just the black community that needs a better understanding of marriage. It’s the whole country.

People today think of marriage as a capstone and a crowning achievement of adulthood, which is the opposite of what it should be, according to Bradley.

“It’s the beginning of a good life. It’s not that you live a good life and then get married,” Bradley said. “You actually use marriage to ground and shape and structure a life that is characterized by flourishing. And I want all children, regardless of their income level, to see that as an aspiration above career and above the acquisition of stuff.”

Social media, film, and music will help promote fatherhood and marriage. But ultimately, the responsibility to raise future fathers falls on families rather than on welfare programs and pop culture.

“We need to actually disperse the work and put these young men and young women in homes with people,” Bradley said. “Let them come over for dinner, take them on vacation with you, let them see your family in action.”

Earlier this spring, the International Olympic Committee released a new policy on protecting women’s sports in future games. The committee concluded that “for all disciplines on the Sports Programme of an IOC Event, including individual and team sports, eligibility for any Female Category is limited to Biological Females.” 

The IOC’s rationale was very thorough and scientific. The committee found that “to protect fairness in sports and events that rely on strength, power, and/or endurance, as well as safety particularly in contact sports, it is necessary and adequate to base eligibility for competition on biological sex.”  

The IOC’s new policy should be applauded, yet it came on the backs of decisive and unapologetic leadership from President Donald Trump, former female athlete Riley Gaines, and many others. 

For the vast majority of Americans, this finding was celebrated. Most people still use science and common sense to drive everyday life, including the line between men’s and women’s sports.  

A 2025 NBC News Stay Tuned Poll showed that 75% of respondents disagreed with biological male athletes competing in female sports. In a January 2025 Ipsos survey, 94% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats, and 64% of independents also indicated their preference for protecting the integrity of women’s sports. 

While the IOC and the majority of the American public may agree on the scientific facts behind safeguarding women’s sports, many elected Democrats around the nation, including in my own state of Arizona, do not.  

It was unfortunate to see that while only a minority of registered Democrats across the nation think boys should be able to play in girls sports, 100% of Arizona’s out-of-touch liberal legislators voted to allow boys in girls sports.  

These elected Democrats are holding on to crazy, unscientific, and dangerous fantasies. They would rather jeopardize the safety of girls and women than dare to hurt the feelings of men pretending to be women. 

The issue transcends women’s sports; it has included a malicious desire to allow men into women’s private spaces like bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms. Across the country, Democrats have continually blurred the lines between men and women and what we have historically held sacred in this country.  

Again, most people do not believe that a biological man should be allowed to walk into a woman’s restricted area. Yet this has been happening for years and celebrated by the Left. 

The ultimate gaslighting is telling a boy that he is a girl or that he can invade girls’ private spaces and arenas. I can’t wake up one day and decide I want to identify as a cat—no matter how much I match my appearance to our feline friends. If I did so, then people would rightly think I had lost my mind. But this is effectively what has been happening around America. People are showing their insanity by working to bend the rules of biology. 

That’s why, as president of the Arizona State Senate, I’ve refused to capitulate to the crazy and dangerous ideas of the Left—and I’ve gone on the offensive for what’s right.  

I’ve led the charge on safeguarding girls bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports. I’ve even spearheaded the defense of Arizona’s commonsense law protecting the integrity of women’s sports, taking our case (Jane Doe v. Warren Petersen) all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.  

Currently, the Supreme Court is considering two of these women’s sports cases (from West Virginia and Idaho), and the forthcoming opinion will decide the fate of other laws being held up in federal litigation, including Arizona’s.  

In fact, I was sitting in the Supreme Court next to Attorneys General John McCuskey and Raúl Labrador during the oral arguments for this case at the beginning of the year. It was sadly unsurprising to hear that some of the justices didn’t know the biological definition of a woman. Fortunately, though, for the rest of real America, most of the justices did know the biological definition of a woman—and I believe we will receive a 6-3 ruling in favor of science and common sense. 

Unfortunately for Arizonans—especially girls and women—our state has a Democrat governor and attorney general. Both are unwilling to listen to the majority of reasonable people and stand for the integrity of women’s sports or the decency of privacy in bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms.  

Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed several reasonable attempts by the Republican-led Arizona Legislature to protect women, while Attorney General Kris Mayes has been absent throughout the process to defend Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act. 

As the IOC found in creating its new policy for future Olympic Games, “biological sex, which is divided into categories (Male and Female, based on their reproductive biology, including their sex chromosomes, gonads and hormones), is distinct from gender identity, which is a person’s sense of themselves as a woman or a man or neither/non-binary.”  

This finding didn’t used to be controversial at all, and it still isn’t in most American circles. The problem is that we’ve allowed a small (though growing) number of radicals to influence our policies across our states, nation, and world, leading to chaos and insanity about unalterable scientific realities. 

Though this debate has been raging now for several years, we are still in the early stages of the war over women’s sports and private spaces. We cannot lose this battle or allow future generations of Americans to grow up in a new normal, where boys and men are allowed unfettered access to girls’ and women’s restricted areas or sports.  

That’s why I’m fighting every day to protect women’s sports and private spaces. 

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal. 

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Victor Davis Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes.

Jack Fowler: First of all, there have been protests—significant protests—against the murder of Henry Nowak in England and the attempted beheading of the gentleman, whose name I forget, forgive me, in Belfast. So throughout Ireland, throughout England, and including Scotland—Glasgow—there have been these protests. 

So, here’s what I think is a typical response from your typical Eurocrat. This is John Swinney, the first minister of Scotland. Here’s the headline from The Scotsman newspaper over there: 

“Scotland must stand against racism, hatred and intimidation.” 

“First Minister John Swinney has said Scotland must stand against racism, hatred and intimidation after protests following a knife attack in Belfast. 

“In a post on social media, Mr. Swinney said, ‘The scenes we saw in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Ayr last night are unacceptable. Scotland is a welcoming nation, and those who choose to make their lives here are valued members of our community. Racism, hatred and intimidation have no place in Scotland. We must stand against it.'” 

Don’t you— 

Victor Davis Hanson: Where do they get this? Do they have an AI thing that always turns out this boilerplate? “This has no place here. This isn’t who we are.” All that stuff? 

Why doesn’t he just admit that there’s no audit of the people coming into the U.K.? They come in illegally for the most part. They come from areas that are governed illiberally. They come with religious differences. They have ideas about women and homosexuals, other tribal people, people not of their tribe. They have very negative views of them. 

And they won’t assimilate, integrate, or acculturate at a pace that would be expected of any other immigrant. So, they have gotten the message that they’re going to be subsidized with housing, education, food, and medicine, and they feel that the host owes them that. 

Then, when they’re deterred from the consequences of their behavior—whether it’s a rape gang or walking down the street and hitting somebody—they go to the next level. 

Now, “they” is a collective stereotype and generalization. But this demagogic politician doesn’t say anything about this. But he wants to give a soapbox platitude so that he feels good about himself. But he doesn’t understand that no one is listening to him anymore. 

There’s an entire European movement, and if they don’t intervene and say, “We expect every single person in the U.K. to have come legally, and they must reside legally. If you’re an immigrant, you must be self-supporting and fully employed, and you will face the full force of the law just like subjects of the Crown. If you can’t do that, would you please leave?” They can’t say that. I don’t know why they can’t say it. 

I don’t know how they got in this position where some cities are 20% to 30% non-Indigenous people, but it’s not working, and it’s going to spread. 

The next thing that’s going to happen is that if they won’t address it in a sober and moderate fashion, people are going to get frustrated. We saw those two girls, I think they were from Scotland, remember? They were defending themselves from that predator. 

Fowler: With the knife and a hatchet? 

Hanson: Yeah. And she was trying to protect, was it her sister or her friend? 

Fowler: Her sister. Her sister. 

Hanson: Yeah. Everybody demonized her and said, “Oh, this is…” You know. 

Then he was found guilty the other day of actually trying to attack them or solicit them in some fashion. 

But if you allow grooming gangs and you don’t do anything about it, people are going to get frustrated, and they’re going to get violent. 

You have to treat everybody equally under the law, and you have to have the rule of law. That’s where we learned the rule of law—from the Western tradition via Britain. 

And if there’s no rule of law… 

You know, here in the United States, there was just a poll that said it was overwhelming. Seventy percent wanted everybody deported who was here illegally and committed a crime. 

I thought, “Well, that doesn’t do anybody any good. Who wouldn’t?” 

Then I read down further: 56% of the population wants everybody deported who came here illegally.  

How could that be when we’re told by the leftist media that all these people who are spitting at ICE, throwing rocks at them, and waving plastic phallic symbols represent the public? 

Well, the public is tired of that. They look at the ICE agents and don’t see demonic figures. They see largely minority people who want a living and want to protect their communities, which are the most impacted by illegal immigration. 

Fowler: Yeah. Look, why is an elitist type—whether in government or media in England—who believes he has the right to say, “You lower-middle-class white dude are a racist for this and this reason”? 

So, they have some racism calibration, but they won’t apply it to immigrants who have racial— 

Hanson: Because they have this Marxist, Foucauldian, Lacanian, Derridean, postmodern, Frantz Fanon idea that there is a binary. There’s no middle. There’s a victim and an oppressed person, and there’s a victimizer and an oppressor. 

And the duty of all good Marxists is to—and they have redefined this. Marx didn’t talk about race. He talked about class. They said class doesn’t matter because many people on their side of the binary are wealthier than the so-called oppressor side. 

Barack Obama is much, much, much, much wealthier than Joe Biden. His children are in much better shape than Hunter Biden. 

Yet they are on the oppressed side. Nobody can define it. We don’t know what makes a person part of the oppressed side. I guess it’s one Confederate drop, one-sixteenth non-white blood, non-Christian faith, or whatever standard they use. 

Once they went down that road of racial essentialism, they had to have something. 

Even Native American tribes who went down that side said that nobody can be in charge of this casino unless they have tribal blood. Well, in our society, what does that mean? It means they have to have DNA, and I think it’s one-sixteenth or one-eighth. 

You can see how absurd this is. It’s going back to the antebellum South. And that’s what they’re doing.  

You can be very, very wealthy. You can be very privileged. You can have every advantage. 

Cory Booker’s parents were corporate grandees. He grew up in a very upscale environment, and we’re supposed to think he is a champion of the oppressed? 

Jasmine Crockett has two accents: one that reflects her middle-class, upscale private schooling and another that she puts on when she wants to be authentically inner-city. 

It’s a joke. The whole thing is performance art, and everybody’s tired of it. 

So, this guy is going to get up and lecture, lecture, lecture. But he should ask himself: If you say “black” today, or “non-white,” it’s usually in a positive sense.  

But if you hear a government bureaucrat, a media figure, or a celebrity say “white,” it’s almost always in a negative context. It’s a pejorative. 

And people who are somewhere between 67% and 71% of the population— 

By the way, I think it’s a ridiculous rubric anyway. I live in a Hispanic area, and in the summer I am darker than many of my Hispanic friends. I see people at the bank every day speaking Spanish and they’re pure white. 

I don’t know why we call them non-white. I don’t know why anybody calls anybody white or non-white. But that’s another story. 

The point I’m making is that it’s always used as a pejorative, and that’s not sustainable. People will not put up with that. 

When you  add “deplorables,” “irredeemables,” Peter Strzok saying, “I smelled them all at Walmart,” the CNN commentator saying, “I have more teeth than everybody at a Trump rally,” Joe Biden saying, “ultra MAGA,” “semi-fascists,” “garbage,” and “chumps,” and then Barack Obama saying they cling to their guns and religion— 

It’s time to quit that because there’s a big revolt, and you don’t want it to get like it is in Europe. 

When you have the young Ukrainian woman butchered, and this conniver DeCarlos Brown is now suing the FBI, and then you just recently had the young kid walking outside his home in Philadelphia who was murdered, and the woman set on fire in Chicago—these high-profile black-on-white crimes—and then the reaction is… 

I don’t know what the reaction is, but in the case of Karmelo Anthony, you had counter-demonstrations where they basically said he was the victim and the man he murdered was the oppressor. 

When you have AI imagery of people urinating on Austin Metcalf’s supposed grave—I guess it was manufactured by AI, but the message was still hatred. 

We have got to get rid of this university idea that if you’re on the victim side of the binary, you’re incapable of racism or oppression. That’s just a get-out-of-jail-free card. That is just an invitation to be racist. 

The only thing that keeps us from behaving badly is some kind of deterrence, whether that’s religious, legal, social, or shame. 

But if you remove those deterrents, you’re going to see human nature in the raw, with the veneer stripped off.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.