JRK

Holy sh*t… This isn't the march, this is people heading to the gathering point of the march. This is unprecedented.

Compare what Republican Congressmen SAY vs. what they DO. Congressmen may talk America First but are they actually? This is the updated scores from 16 trusted scorecards as well as the average score sorted from highest to lowest in 5% increments. Also a few Democrats are put in for comparison. Links to Scorecards, Google Doc spreadsheet, and sorting by state at end of thread. Pg 1. 100-95%, Top America First Congressmen and 95-90% America First by average of CPAC, Freedom Score, Liberty Score, Gun Owners Association, Heritage Action Score, Club for Growth, Liberty Index, Turning Point, Trump Score, Susan B Anthony ProLife, NumbersUSA, Immigration Accountability Project, Family Research Council (not averaged in), America First Insight, RINOScorus and their MAHA score, and the Institute for Legislative Analysis.

If American universities have become dependent on selling access to the OPT scam to make money, that's their problem. What about the Americans who face the insult of their own government giving companies tax incentives to hire foreigners first?

A new Muslim halal food court in London. No pork or alcohol allowed and they have a prayer room. These are the type of places certain Restore Britain and Reform supporters want to ban. It’s part of Rupert Lowe pathetic manifesto

NOW - Trump says it's good to have 500,000 foreign Chinese students in the U.S. and for China to purchase U.S. farmland; otherwise, colleges and farm prices would collapse: "I frankly think that it's good that people come from other countries and they learn our culture."

A peer-reviewed paper published last year in the journal Bioethics by two professors at Western Michigan University School of Medicine argues that it is "morally obligatory" to genetically engineer ticks to spread alpha-gal syndrome, a permanent condition that makes you violently allergic to red meat. The paper is called "Beneficial Bloodsucking." Their argument: if eating meat is morally wrong, then preventing the spread of a disease that forces people to stop eating meat is also morally wrong. Scientists should gene-edit lone star ticks to enhance their ability to carry alpha-gal syndrome and expand their range into urban environments to infect more people. They call this a "moral bioenhancer." They frame releasing genetically modified disease-carrying ticks as a "vaccination" that only "infringes" on your bodily autonomy rather than "violating" it. The distinction, apparently, is that a tick bit you instead of a government official holding you down. Alpha-gal syndrome is not mild. The CDC estimates up to 450,000 Americans are already affected. Cases have surged 100-fold in the last decade. Symptoms include anaphylaxis. There is no cure. Alpha-gal cases are exploding across the United States. The lone star tick's range is expanding far beyond its historical territory. And two academics at a medical school published a paper arguing this is a good thing that should be accelerated. At what point do we stop treating papers like this as fringe academic exercises and start asking whether anyone is already acting on them?