Category: Essays (Page 3 of 4)

A six-year old girl in Texas is dead. Not because of some rare, incurable disease. Not because doctors couldn’t save her. She died because her parents—guided by outdated, arrogant beliefs dressed up as faith—refused to protect her from a disease we’ve had a vaccine for since the 1970s.

She caught measles. They gave her castor oil and inhaled steroids, as if this was some Biblical-era affliction to be treated with snake oil and hope. When she got worse, they finally took her to the hospital, where she was intubated and died on February 26, 2025. And now, in the most chilling detail of all, her parents say it was “just her time” and that she’s “in a better place.”

No. Don’t you dare say it was her time. It was preventable. It was a failure of basic decency. A child died because her parents chose fantasy over medicine. It was a goddamn preventable, pointless death served up on an altar of arrogance, ignorance, and delusion.

She died because her parents chose superstition over science. She died because somewhere along the line, someone convinced them that vaccines were evil, and God prefers helplessness to action. She died because they believed that standing by in blind faith is more righteous than stepping up and doing the basic, decent thing to keep a child alive.

And what did they do after she died? They doubled down. Their other children—four of them—caught measles following their sister’s death. And instead of taking that death as the clearest, most horrifying warning imaginable, they once again turned to castor oil and steroids. Those other four children recovered, though who knows what side effects they will have from this throughout their lives. But let’s not mistake luck for wisdom. They survived in spite of their parents’ actions, not because of them.

This Is Not Faith. It’s Negligence

Picture this: My small child is walking into traffic on a busy highway. I see the cars coming. I see the danger. Someone in a house nearby screams, “Grab her! Pull her back!” But I hold up my hand and say, “Nah, if she’s meant to be spared, God will do it.” And so I let her keep walking. She’s hit by a car doing 45mph. She dies on impact. And then I turn to the crowd and say, “It was just her time.”

What would happen to me? I’d be called a monster. I’d be charged with negligence. No one would care about my beliefs or my intentions. No one would say, “Well, that’s just his personal choice.” Because the truth is plain: I had the power to stop it and I didn’t. I let her die in the name of faith—and that’s not spirituality, that’s manslaughter with extra steps.

And if, after that, I lined up my other children on the same road and said, “Let’s see if the rest survive,” I wouldn’t be seen as pious—I’d be arrested. Thrown in prison. Denounced by everyone with a shred of decency. But somehow, when this same reckless indifference is wrapped in religious tradition and medical ignorance, we’re expected to nod solemnly and whisper, “What a tragedy,” instead of shouting what this really is: a failure, a horror, and a death that never had to happen.

There is nothing holy about letting your child die when a simple vaccine could have saved her. There is no virtue in standing idle while disease spreads through your family because you’ve convinced yourself that medical science is somehow an affront to God.

Faith without responsibility is just cowardice wrapped in dogma. And let’s be clear—this isn’t persecution of religion. It’s a demand for accountability. You don’t get to opt out of reality and then act surprised when it crushes you.

Belief Is Not an Excuse for Death

We’ve let this twisted version of “faith” go unchecked for too long. We’ve allowed conspiracy to hide behind religious liberty. And while grown adults can choose delusion if they want, children cannot. Children rely on us to protect them. To make decisions based on truth, not magical thinking.

No benevolent God willed this. It was failure, plain and brutal—failure of reason, of responsibility, and of love, sacrificed on the altar of delusion dressed up as faith

This little girl never got the chance to grow up and make her own decisions. Her parents made them for her.

And now she’s dead.

Let’s get something straight right now: Elon Musk is a disaster. He is a billionaire troll, an egomaniac who masquerades as a free speech warrior while silencing critics, a man who has taken one of the most innovative companies of our time and turned it into a chaotic extension of his own fragile ego. He deserves protests. He deserves to be called out. He deserves to be ridiculed and held accountable for the damage he’s done.

But what he does not deserve—and what no one should be tolerating—is the domestic terrorism now being committed in his name. Firing bullets into dealerships? Setting fire to Teslas? Doxxing and encouraging vandalism against private citizens who just happen to own a Tesla?

What the hell are we doing?

This isn’t resistance. This is mindless, self-defeating stupidity. This is criminal.

Congratulations, You Just Became the Villain

There is a difference between protesting power and terrorizing random people who happen to be adjacent to that power. And right now, the people waging this idiotic anti-Tesla campaign aren’t hurting Musk—they’re helping him.

What do you think happens when you torch a random Tesla? Do you think Elon Musk feels that pain? Do you think the billionaire in his mansion is worried about some guy in Illinois who now has to explain to his insurance company why his car was firebombed? No. He doesn’t care.

But you know who does care? The public. And every single one of these idiotic, extremist attacks feeds right into the authoritarian playbook Musk himself is using.

• He wants to paint his critics as violent lunatics.

• He wants to justify surveillance, crackdowns, and retaliations against activists.

• He wants to turn this into a culture war where he is the oppressed one and the lunatic liberals are the evildoers.

And guess what? You’re giving it to him.

This Isn’t Resistance—It’s a Gift to Authoritarians

You know who loves this? Every authoritarian figure salivating at the chance to justify state crackdowns on protests and dissent. The moment you start setting fires and committing acts of violence, you hand them everything they need to justify harsher laws, more surveillance, more police power.

This is not how you fight billionaires. This is not how you take on corruption.

This is how you give your enemy the moral high ground.

• You want to hurt Musk? Expose his hypocrisy. Show how his so-called “free speech” absolutism crumbles the moment he’s criticized.

• You want to weaken Tesla? Attack his business where it actually matters. Call out the corporate welfare. Boycott his companies. Dig into his corrupt government contracts.

• You want to challenge his power? Organize. Build something that makes his influence irrelevant instead of lashing out like a petulant child.

But for the love of whatever remains of rational thought in this country, stop acting like unhinged extremists.

The Road to Hell is Paved with Idiots Who Think They’re Revolutionaries

I get it. The frustration. The anger. The absolute rage at watching a man like Elon Musk be rewarded for his worst impulses. But anger without strategy is self-destruction. And right now, what’s happening isn’t protest—it’s pathetic, counterproductive nonsense that does nothing but prove the other side right.

You don’t fight authoritarianism by giving it an excuse to expand. You don’t take down a corrupt billionaire by torching some random dude’s car. And you don’t win a battle for democracy by becoming the very thing you claim to hate.

So stop. Think. And if you really want to make a difference, put down the lighter and pick up a real weapon: intelligence, strategy, and the ability to fight smart. Because right now, you’re just handing Musk and his defenders exactly what they need.

Cancel culture. The great evil of our time—at least, that’s what conservatives want you to believe. According to them, cancel culture is a leftist plague: silencing free speech, destroying careers, and eroding the very fabric of American society. They rage against it on cable news, rant about it in congressional hearings, and cry victim whenever someone faces consequences for saying something bigoted or idiotic.

And yet, when the target of outrage is something they dislike, when it’s a company, a celebrity, or a movie that doesn’t fit into their narrow worldview, suddenly cancellation is a moral duty. Suddenly, boycotts aren’t censorship, they’re justice. And nowhere is this hypocrisy more ridiculous than in the meltdown over the upcoming live-action Snow White.

We’ve seen this before. When Disney announced Halle Bailey as Ariel in The Little Mermaid, right-wing commentators lost their minds. They ranted that a Black actress playing a fictional mermaid was somehow an attack on tradition, a betrayal of the source material. Suddenly, grown adults who hadn’t thought about Ariel since childhood were deeply concerned about accuracy in mermaid representation.

And now, it’s happening again with Snow White. The right’s talking heads have latched onto the film with a fury usually reserved for actual policy issues, dissecting every casting choice, every rumored plot change, every second of promotional footage—all to mask what is obvious to everyone watching:

They just don’t approve of a Latina Snow White. Of course, they can’t say that out loud, so instead, they invent new reasons to be furious.

• Rachel Zegler is “woke” and doesn’t respect the original. (Translation: She’s not sufficiently grateful for being cast.)

• The movie has changed the seven dwarfs. (A bizarre controversy that dwarfs (nope, not sorry) any real issues affecting Americans.)

• It’s all about woke feminism now! (Because a female lead expressing opinions is apparently an existential crisis.)

But let’s be real. If the exact same movie had cast a white, blue-eyed actress as Snow White, none of these people would care. They wouldn’t be angrily dissecting interviews, they wouldn’t be demanding a boycott, and they certainly wouldn’t be screaming about how the sanctity of a German fairy tale is being desecrated.

The hypocrisy is staggering. The same people who claim to hate cancel culture—who whine endlessly about how the left ruins everything with its oversensitivity—will cancel anything the moment it doesn’t align with their worldview.

• The right proudly canceled Bud Light because the company had the audacity to work with a trans influencer.

• The right tried to cancel the NFL because players kneeled for the national anthem.

• The right canceled M&Ms because the green one wasn’t sexy enough.

• The right canceled Target because the store sold Pride-themed merchandise.

They boycott, rage, and demand corporate punishment at the slightest provocation, all while claiming the left is the real threat to free speech.

What’s even more absurd is that many of these same people will turn around and mock liberals for boycotting companies that donate to anti-LGBTQ groups or for calling out racist, sexist, or homophobic content. Or, say, an electric car company owned by an unelected bureaucrat threatening to slash and burn everything he can.

Their entire worldview is built on the idea that their outrage is righteous, while everyone else’s is cancel culture.

Here’s the truth: this isn’t about artistic integrity, tradition, or loyalty to the source material. It never has been.

No one cared when Disney made a live-action Cinderella in 2015 that changed plenty from the animated version. No one cared when Maleficent completely rewrote Sleeping Beauty’s story. No one had a meltdown over Emma Watson’s feminist take on Belle in Beauty and the Beast (or the fact Emma Watson absolutely cannot carry a tune).

The difference? Those movies didn’t challenge their vision of who gets to be the hero. Those movies fulfilled the white safe expectations for their leads.

The Little Mermaid backlash was never about mermaids—it was about a Black woman being the lead and the Snow White backlash isn’t about faithfulness to the Grimm fairy tale—it’s about a Latina actress playing the fairest of them all.

The anger is a cover, a convenient excuse to mask the same tired outrage about diversity, about women speaking up, about anything that suggests the country isn’t exclusively controlled by historically dominant white culture anymore.

The right’s obsession with turning every casting choice into a political battle isn’t just embarrassing—it’s revealing. It shows that they don’t actually hate cancel culture. They love it. They rely on it. They just want to be the ones wielding it.

They are fragile, unable to handle any challenge to their self-righteous authority. They are weak, refusing to fight for what most of them know is right and preferring instead to settle for what is comfortable and easy.

So let’s stop pretending this is about principles. It’s about power—who gets to be the hero, who gets to be seen, who gets to exist without facing a coordinated outrage campaign from people who claim to hate outrage culture.

If conservatives want to keep canceling movies, fine. Let them. But they should at least drop the pretense that they stand for free expression. Because when your entire movement is built on screaming at a children’s movie, you don’t get to lecture anyone about sensitivity.

There was a time when the United States at least pretended to stand for something. Now? Now, we watch as a nation we swore to support is battered, bombed, and bled dry, and Washington’s response is a pathetic shrug. The same politicians who draped themselves in Ukrainian flags two years ago now act as if Kyiv is a burden, as if Russia’s invasion is Ukraine’s problem, not ours. Aid is stalled, weapons shipments are delayed, and behind closed doors, the unspoken policy is clear: Let them die. Because that’s what abandonment is. That’s what cowardice looks like. And as Ukraine fights for its survival, America—once the so-called arsenal of democracy—can’t even be bothered to reload the guns.

For two years, Ukraine has defied expectations. Outnumbered, outgunned, and facing an adversary with nuclear weapons, they fought like hell. They held the line. They pushed Russia back. They became a symbol of resistance against tyranny. And they did so with the backing—financial and military—of the United States and its allies. But now, as Ukraine reaches a critical moment in the war, that support is wavering. The same leaders who once draped themselves in the Ukrainian flag are turning their backs, and their message is clear: You’re on your own now.

And if the betrayal wasn’t enough, we now have U.S. politicians demanding gratitude for the scraps we’ve given. JD Vance, with all the smugness of a man who has never had to fight for his life, whined that Zelenskyy should be more grateful for America’s support, as if Ukraine is some ungrateful beggar instead of a country fighting and dying on the front lines of democracy. As if the thousands of Ukrainian soldiers who have been maimed, tortured, and executed by Russian forces owe him a personal thank-you card. The arrogance is breathtaking—Ukraine is bleeding out, and Vance wants them to pause and say, “Gee, thanks, Senator.”

And then there’s Trump, who, in his usual display of historical illiteracy, claimed that without U.S. intervention, the war would have ended in “two weeks at most.” Ended how, exactly? Oh, that’s right—with Ukraine flattened, its government executed, and Russia absorbing yet another nation while the world watched. This isn’t just cowardice—it’s complicity. It’s the kind of rhetoric that gives Putin exactly what he wants—an America too divided, too cynical, and too self-obsessed to see that if we let Ukraine fall, we are next.

From “We Stand With Ukraine” to “Not Our Problem”

It wasn’t long ago that both Republicans and Democrats agreed: helping Ukraine resist Russian aggression was a vital U.S. interest. The argument was simple—if Russia could invade Ukraine with impunity, why wouldn’t they keep going? Why wouldn’t China see an opening in Taiwan? Why wouldn’t Iran or North Korea feel emboldened?

Supporting Ukraine wasn’t just about Ukraine. It was about showing the world that aggression has consequences.

But now, that principle seems to have been abandoned. What started as bipartisan support has disintegrated into partisan paralysis. Ukraine aid bills sit stalled in Congress, tangled in domestic political games. Some Republican lawmakers openly declare that funding Ukraine is a waste of resources, parroting Russian propaganda about the war being “unwinnable.” Meanwhile, President Biden, despite calling Ukraine’s defense “critical,” seems unwilling to fight for continued support, more focused on his own political battles than ensuring that Ukraine doesn’t collapse.

The shift is staggering. The message from Washington to Kyiv is no longer “We stand with you”—it’s “Figure it out yourselves.”

The Myth of “We’ve Done Enough”

One of the most infuriating justifications for cutting Ukraine off is the idea that the U.S. has “done enough.” That we’ve already given them too much, that it’s time for Europe to step up, that our resources are better spent elsewhere.

Let’s break this down:

• How much have we actually given? Since the war began, the U.S. has committed around $75 billion in aid to Ukraine—a lot of money, no doubt, but still a fraction of the $886 billion annual U.S. defense budget.

• Where is that money going? Much of it is being used to buy weapons from American manufacturers—meaning it’s not just helping Ukraine, it’s also keeping our own defense industry strong.

• Who benefits if we stop? Cutting aid to Ukraine doesn’t save us money in the long run. It just means Russia wins faster—and then the U.S. will have to spend far more responding to a strengthened, emboldened Moscow.

But the real issue isn’t even the money. It’s the moral cowardice of pretending this war isn’t our problem anymore.

The Consequences of Abandonment

Let’s be very clear: if the U.S. cuts off Ukraine, Ukraine will lose. Not immediately, not overnight, but slowly, painfully, and inevitably.

• Russia has far greater manpower and can keep throwing bodies at the front.

• Without Western weapons, Ukraine will run out of artillery shells, missiles, and drones.

• Without financial support, Ukraine’s economy will collapse under the weight of war.

And when that happens, Russia won’t stop with Ukraine. If Putin successfully absorbs Ukraine, what stops him from testing NATO’s resolve in the Baltics? What stops China from assuming the U.S. will fold on Taiwan?

The cost of supporting Ukraine now is nothing compared to the cost of fighting a larger war later. But Washington doesn’t seem to care.

“Let Them Die” Isn’t a Policy—It’s a Surrender

The United States has always positioned itself as a defender of democracy. But what does it mean when, at a critical moment, we decide that defending democracy is just too much effort?

Because that’s what this is. This isn’t a strategic withdrawal. This isn’t smart policymaking. This is surrender. Surrender to Russian aggression. Surrender to domestic political dysfunction. Surrender to the idea that America’s word means nothing anymore.

Washington can dress it up however they like. They can talk about “fiscal responsibility,” about “avoiding forever wars,” about “focusing on domestic issues.” But what they are really saying is “Let them die.”

Let Ukraine’s soldiers die, outnumbered and outgunned, in trenches that were supposed to be supplied with American artillery.

Let Ukraine’s civilians die, bombed in their homes because the air defense systems they were promised never arrived.

Let democracy die, because defending it is no longer politically convenient.

So let’s drop the pretense. The United States is selling Ukraine out. Not because we can’t afford to help, not because it isn’t in our interest, but because cowards in Washington have decided that betrayal is easier than commitment. Because they would rather cozy up to isolationist slogans and Putin-apologist nonsense than actually take a stand. Because they don’t see a war—they see a political inconvenience. And in the meantime, Ukrainians will keep dying, fighting with whatever scraps we let trickle in, while our leaders sit back and pretend this isn’t our problem. Well, it is. And when history judges this moment, it won’t be kind to those who abandoned a nation fighting for its survival. It won’t be kind to the weak, spineless opportunists who decided that democracy was expendable, that defending an ally was optional, and that America’s word meant nothing. Ukraine is still fighting. The question is whether we will stand with them—or let them die.

In August 2021, Americans and the world watched in horror as Afghanistan collapsed almost overnight. After two decades of U.S. involvement, the Taliban swept back into power, and desperate Afghans clung to departing aircraft—some falling to their deaths in a final, haunting image of America’s retreat.

President Joe Biden’s chaotic withdrawal was met with fury—condemned as reckless, incompetent, and, in some corners, outright treasonous.

Now, barely three years later, history threatens to repeat itself in Ukraine. With whispers of withdrawing support for Kyiv, President Donald Trump stands at the precipice of another American abandonment—one that could hand victory to an adversary even more dangerous than the Taliban.

Afghanistan: A Retreat Turned Rout

Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan was meant to end America’s longest war, but instead, it became a global humiliation. The Taliban overran the country in days, U.S. military equipment fell into enemy hands, and thousands of Afghans who worked alongside American forces were left behind to face near-certain retribution.

The worst part? Biden had months to prepare—and still botched the exit.

Critics across the political spectrum called it a betrayal. Some, including Republican lawmakers, went further—accusing Biden of treason.

Senator Josh Hawley declared:

“Biden’s retreat from Afghanistan is the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation. He abandoned allies, betrayed American servicemen, and handed the Taliban victory. This is disgraceful and treasonous.”

Trump himself slammed Biden, insisting that his own withdrawal plan was far more structured—prioritizing:

1. Evacuating American civilians and diplomats first.
2. Extracting Afghan collaborators and military equipment.
3. Removing U.S. troops last.

Yet the bottom line remains: America walked away from Afghanistan, and its ally fell.

Ukraine: The Next Great Abandonment?

Now, Trump faces the same test—this time in Ukraine.

With U.S. aid packages stalled in Congress and Republicans growing skeptical of supporting Kyiv, America’s commitment to Ukraine is faltering. In fact, the GOP’s official stance refuses to acknowledge that Russia is the aggressor—a stunning departure from basic historical reality.

Let’s be crystal clear:

• Russia violated international law by invading Ukraine in 2022.
• U.N. Resolutions in 2022 and 2023 demanded Russia’s withdrawal.
• Putin ignored them.

Any doublespeak from the Trump administration that tries to shift blame onto Ukraine is a pathetic attempt to rewrite history.

The stakes are even higher than in Afghanistan. Russia isn’t a ragtag insurgency—it’s a nuclear-armed superpower with territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine. If the U.S. abandons Kyiv, the war won’t just end—it will expand.

And yet, the same voices that blasted Biden for leaving Afghanistan now push for abandoning Ukraine:

• Trump, who excoriated Biden for “surrendering,” now questions if America should support Ukraine at all.
• House Republicans, who raged against the Afghanistan withdrawal, now actively block aid to Kyiv.
• Conservative media figures, who called Biden weak, now demand Trump pull out of Ukraine completely as a show of strength.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

If abandoning Afghanistan was treason, why is abandoning Ukraine “pragmatic”?

If Biden was a traitor for one retreat, how is Trump a hero for another?

Trump’s Own Betrayals—And the Lack of Outrage

For all the fury over Biden’s handling of Afghanistan, let’s not forget:

Trump himself has a long track record of betraying U.S. allies.

1. The Abandonment of the Kurds (2019)

In 2019, Trump withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria, abandoning Kurdish fighters who had been America’s most reliable partners against ISIS.

The result?

• Turkey launched an immediate invasion, displacing thousands of Kurds.
• ISIS prisoners escaped from detention camps, reviving the terrorist threat.
• Even Republicans condemned Trump, with Senator Lindsey Graham calling it “the biggest mistake of his presidency.”

Yes, Trump was criticized—but the backlash was a whisper compared to the fury Biden faced over Afghanistan.

No mainstream voices called Trump treasonous.

No congressional hearings branded him a national security threat.

His betrayal was excused as an ‘America First’ policy.

2. The Taliban Deal (2020)

Before Biden even took office, Trump cut a deal with the Taliban, signing an agreement in February 2020 that:

• Excluded the Afghan government from negotiations, undercutting U.S. allies.
• Freed 5,000 Taliban prisoners, many of whom returned to the battlefield.
• Set the stage for the rapid Taliban takeover the moment U.S. troops left.

And yet, Trump faced no lasting political damage.

When Biden followed through on the withdrawal Trump had set in motion, only Biden bore the blame.

America’s Foreign Policy: A Double Standard

America’s commitment to its allies is not based on principle.

It is based on political convenience.

• When a Democratic president withdraws, it’s treason.
• When a Republican president abandons allies, it’s America First.
• When Biden left Afghanistan, it was weakness.
• When Trump wants to leave Ukraine, it’s common sense.

This hypocrisy does more than expose partisan double standards—it damages U.S. credibility.

• If allies believe American support is fleeting, why should they risk survival by trusting Washington?
• If Ukraine is abandoned, what message does that send to Taiwan? NATO? Every nation relying on U.S. security guarantees?

It tells them America is a fair-weather friend.

The United States can either stand by its allies or prove to the world that American loyalty is conditional—offered when convenient, rescinded when difficult.

If abandoning Afghanistan was a disaster, abandoning Ukraine will be a catastrophe.

And those who cheered for one and condemned the other deserve to be called out and remembered for their hypocrisy.

For over two centuries, the United States has functioned without a federally declared official language. This is not an oversight, but a deliberate choice. The founders, wary of central authority, left language policy to the states, where governance was supposed to be closest to the people. Now, a new movement seeks to impose a federal mandate making English the official language of the United States. It is a curious crusade, championed by many of the same voices who claim to despise federal overreach, yet now clamor for Washington to dictate language policy from above.

This is not about preserving English—English is in no danger. This is about power, control, and the age-old hypocrisy of those who rail against federal authority only to embrace it when it suits their agenda.

The United States has functioned just fine without a federally designated official language. English has been the dominant tongue not because of government fiat but because of practicality, history, and cultural momentum. Immigrants, regardless of origin, have historically recognized that learning English is key to economic and social mobility, and they have done so without the federal government demanding it.

More importantly, language policy has traditionally been left to the states—consistent with the long-standing American tradition of local governance. Some states have chosen to recognize English officially, while others have adopted multilingual policies to reflect their diverse populations. The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to dictate a national language, which has been respected for well over 200 years.

Until February 28, 2025. 

Historical Takes on a National Language

If the Founding Fathers believed an official national language was necessary, they would have declared one in the Constitution. They did not. Why? Because they recognized that America was already a linguistically diverse nation. In the early republic, German, Dutch, and French were spoken widely alongside English. The idea of federalizing language would have been anathema to them.

Thomas Jefferson, the great advocate of limited government, specifically opposed federal control over education and culture. He believed such matters should be left to local communities. Yet today’s self-proclaimed Jeffersonians want to use federal power in a way that Jefferson himself would have condemned.

To be fair, there have certainly been cases where the subject of English as a standard language for the United States has been discussed. John Adams sent a letter to the President of Congress on September 5, 1780, in which he proposed the creation of an institution dedicated to refining and standardizing the English language:

“The Honour of forming the first public Institution for refining, correcting, improving and ascertaining the English Language, I hope is reserved for Congress.”

However, nowhere in this letter does Adams indicate he is interested in making English the mandated official language of the country. What Adams was speaking about was that English, like Latin previously, appeared largely to become the “language of the world” and should be cared for accordingly. He was not saying no other languages should be spoken or respected and he certainly was not advocating a homogenous language order from on high. 

At any rate, Congress declined to act upon Adams’ proposal, and no official language was designated at the federal level. Congress instead recognized the nation’s linguistic diversity and was reluctant to impose a singular language, allowing for a more inclusive approach to the country’s multicultural fabric.

In 1907, Theodore Roosevelt also pushed for a national language of English, believing it would lead to national cohesion. Respectable goal, but cohesion at the expense of the diverse cultural makeup our country was built on and has flourished with. As a result, this effort met with significant opposition and was ultimately shot down.

State Sovereignty…or Not

The same people pushing for this federal English mandate are, in many cases, the same self-proclaimed heroes who champion states’ rights. This is ideological opportunism, not principle. It reveals the truth that many so-called “small government” advocates don’t honestly oppose federal power—they just want it wielded in their favor.

• When the federal government enforces environmental protections? Overreach!
• When the federal government protects voting rights? Tyranny!
• When the federal government mandates English as the official language? Well, that’s just common sense!

The irony is even richer considering the conservative outcry over Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, which mandates the use of French in various public and private sectors. Many Americans, especially those advocating for minimal government intervention, view these regulations as excessive and contrary to the principles of personal freedom. 

So What’s This Really About?

So again, let’s be clear that English is not in any way endangered. It is the dominant language of government, business, and media. The overwhelming majority of Americans, including immigrants, already speak it. If any country ever had a de facto official language, English is just that for the United States.

So why the sudden urgency of an executive order? 

Because this isn’t about language—it’s about identity politics and cultural control. 

This is not about ensuring English remains the common tongue. It already is. 

This is about using the federal government to enforce cultural conformity. It is about more separation and yet another attack on any form of diversity.

Declaring English the official language is a way to signal opposition to multiculturalism. It is a thinly veiled attempt to exclude non-English speakers from political and social participation, reinforcing the false idea that linguistic diversity is a threat rather than a strength. It is a carefully constructed, legal approach to segregation at best, outright bigotry at worst.

It is also an excuse to cut government services in other languages, including translation for immigrants, public health materials, and bilingual education. This would not just inconvenience non-English speakers—it would actively harm communities, particularly in emergency situations where language access can mean the difference between life and death.

A federal mandate declaring English the official language is a solution to a problem that does not exist, proposed by people who claim to oppose federal overreach—except when it serves their interests. It is yet another political maneuver designed to drive a wedge between us, not to unify.

If English is truly as common as its advocates claim, it does not need federal protection. If states’ rights are truly as sacred as these lawmakers argue, they should not be undermined by Washington’s interference. And if the United States is truly a land of liberty, then its people should be free to speak and conduct their lives without the heavy hand of the federal government telling them how to do so.

Hypocrisy may be the official language of Washington, D.C, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to speak it.

¡Desafía la corona!

Киньте виклик короні!

ताज की अवहेलना करो!

My Sons,

There’s been a lot of talk lately about what it means to be a man—what’s expected, what’s allowed, what’s supposedly under attack. Some would have you believe that manhood is a fixed point, a rigid thing with clear rules and boundaries, that to be a man means to follow a script written long ago. But I want you to understand something that too many people refuse to see: manhood is not a cage, it’s a spectrum, a living thing that grows with you, that evolves with time and experience.

You will hear people—especially those who crave power—tell you that masculinity is being attacked. That’s a lie. What’s being questioned, rightfully so, are the narrow, outdated ideas of what men must be: unfeeling, aggressive, dominant, stoic to the point of silence. These are not strengths; they are chains. You do not need to measure your worth by them.

Instead, I want you to see manhood not as something you must fit into, but as something you shape. You are not just inheritors of masculinity; you are creators of it. And like anything worth creating, it requires thought, care, and the courage to challenge what doesn’t serve you or those around you.

There is nothing wrong with being strong. There is nothing wrong with resilience, or with standing up for what you believe in. There is nothing wrong with “telling jokes” or “having a beer.” But there is a vast difference between true strength and toxic masculinity, which confuses dominance with power and silence with control.

A man who lifts others up is strong, a man who crushes others to feel taller is weak.

A man who faces his fears is strong, a man who denies he has any is fragile.

A man who protects the vulnerable is strong, a man who preys on the weak is cowardly.

There will be people who tell you that expressing kindness, compassion, or emotion makes you less of a man. That’s nonsense. A man who cannot express love is not strong—he is stunted. A man who cannot say “I’m sorry” or “I was wrong” is not tough—he is afraid.

You do not need to fear your emotions. The world does not need more men who bottle up their pain until it curdles into violence or bitterness. The world does not need more men who believe tears are only for women or children. The world needs men who understand that strength without vulnerability is hollow.

There was a time when being a man meant swinging a sword or plowing a field. A time when it meant never questioning authority, never showing fear, never crying over loss. But the world has changed, and so must we.

Your male ancestors were, of course, men of their times. Some of what they believed was admirable—hard work, duty, resilience. Some of what they believed was toxic—silence as a virtue, anger as the only acceptable emotion, love expressed only through sacrifice rather than words. Their strengths should be remembered, their mistakes should be learned from, and their limitations should not be yours.

Manhood should not be a hand-me-down suit you are forced to wear—it should be something tailored to fit who you truly are.

You do not need to only be a warrior to be a man. You do not only need to be wealthy. You do not only need to be a leader.

You only need to be you.

I hope you become men who are strong enough to be gentle. Men who can fight for what’s right without needing to fight for the sake of it. Men who can say “I don’t know” and seek answers instead of pretending they already have them. Men who respect others—not because it makes them look honorable, but because respect is the foundation of real strength. Men who do not confuse cruelty for power. Men who know that masculinity is not one thing, but many things, and that your manhood is yours to define.

I will not tell you what kind of man you must be. That’s for you to decide. But I will tell you this: the world is full of people who will try to fit you into a mold that serves them rather than you. Don’t let them. You don’t need permission to be the kind of man you want to be.

And if someone tells you that you are “not man enough” because you cry, or because you love openly, or because you refuse to follow the old scripts—then know this: they are the ones who are afraid. Afraid that masculinity can be more than what they comprehend. Afraid that it can be something richer, deeper, and more human than the brittle, narrow thing they have built their identities around.

Be strong. Be kind. Be wise enough to know the difference between confidence and arrogance, between power and cruelty, between tradition and chains. Be the kind of man who builds, not the kind who destroys.

To the world I am Brutus.

To both of you I will always be proud to be just Dad

I hope this letter finds you well. I wanted to take a moment to engage with you on a topic that has, in recent years, become one of the most contentious issues in our cultural and political discourse: transgender identity. I know that for many conservatives, the growing visibility of transgender individuals and the societal changes surrounding gender identity may feel unsettling, even threatening. My goal here is not to dismiss your concerns but to explore them honestly and to offer an alternative perspective—one rooted in both history and reality.

You may feel that the increasing recognition of transgender people represents a fundamental shift in our understanding of gender, a challenge to traditions that have guided civilization for millennia. This is a valid feeling; cultural change can be disorienting. However, history tells us that transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals have always existed, across all societies and eras. From the Hijras of South Asia to the Two-Spirit people of Indigenous North America, variations in gender expression are not new. What is new is our society’s willingness to acknowledge these identities and protect the rights of those who hold them.

One of the central concerns I often hear from conservatives is the belief that acknowledging transgender identities erodes the concept of biological reality. But science itself does not support a rigid binary view of gender. Biological sex is complex, influenced by chromosomes, hormones, and brain development, and there are naturally occurring variations beyond male and female. Recognizing this does not mean denying biology but rather acknowledging its complexity. The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and countless other medical bodies recognize that gender identity is a deeply ingrained aspect of human experience, and for some, it does not align neatly with the sex they were assigned at birth.

Another major concern seems to be the fear that acknowledging transgender people somehow threatens traditional values, family structures, or even the rights of others. But in reality, transgender individuals seeking recognition and equal treatment are not infringing on the rights of anyone else. They are not demanding that you change your beliefs, only that they be allowed to live their lives freely, just as you do. The existence of transgender people does not prevent you from raising your children with the values you hold dear, worshiping as you choose, or maintaining traditional gender roles in your own life. It simply allows others the same freedom.

The perception of a threat often comes from how the issue is framed in media and political discourse. When politicians or commentators argue that recognizing transgender rights means the collapse of civilization or the destruction of the family, they are not engaging with reality but rather stoking fear. Fear is a powerful political tool, and it is often used to rally people against change, even when that change is fundamentally about extending dignity and respect to others.

Perhaps the most charged aspect of this debate concerns children and gender identity. I understand why many conservatives worry about the well-being of children, and I share that concern. But the best available evidence suggests that affirming a child’s gender identity leads to better mental health outcomes. It is important to recognize that gender-affirming care does not mean rushing children into medical interventions but rather providing a supportive environment where they can explore their identity safely. The reality is that transgender youth exist, and ignoring or denying their identity does not make them disappear—it only increases their suffering.

Ultimately, I believe the core conservative principle of individual freedom should lead to a position of tolerance, if not outright support, for transgender people. If we value personal liberty, should that not extend to people making decisions about their own bodies and identities? If we believe in limited government, should we not resist laws that police how people express themselves? And if we champion the family, should we not support parents who choose to love and affirm their transgender children?

I am not asking you to abandon your beliefs, but I do ask that you consider the possibility that transgender people are not the enemy of civilization, tradition, or morality. They are simply people—people who, like everyone else, want to live freely, love openly, and be treated with dignity.

I appreciate you taking the time to read this letter, and I hope it fosters reflection, if not agreement. At the end of the day, we may not see eye to eye on everything, but if we can at least see each other as human beings rather than adversaries, that is a step toward a better, more understanding society.

With respect and sincerity,
Brutus X