4. Record-Breaking Funding and Policy Action Government and institutional support to protect Jewish communities has reached unprecedented levels:Increased Security Grants: The federal government successfully increased the Nonprofit Security Grant Program funding to help synagogues, day schools, and community centers upgrade their physical security.Corporate Accountability: Organizations like the ADL have successfully audited major corporate entities. This includes tech and gaming giants like Electronic Arts and Take-Two Interactive, pushing them to tighten hate speech algorithms to block online extremism at the source.

Ojike Uzoma @Xtopher_Uzo · Jun 22 ON ALTAR GIRLS I don't really fancy the idea of altar girls, but it doesn't matter. The Church permits it, and that's what matters. Historically, altar serving has always had a close connection to the priesthood. For many priests today, their first experience of serving the Church was as altar servers. Some of my friends who served at the altar when we were young are priests today. That is why I think altar serving is best reserved for boys. It naturally creates a path that can inspire and nurture priestly vocations. In my opinion, that is one of the strongest reasons for maintaining an all-male altar service. This is not because women are less important in the Church. Far from it. Women contribute immensely to the life of the Church in countless ways. For instance, they can serve as lectors, catechists, choir members, sacristans, church wardens, and many other roles. That said, the Church permits female altar servers. The Church has spoken on the matter, and individual Catholics do not have the authority to overturn that decision simply because they prefer a different practice. So while my personal preference is for an all-boys altar service, I accept the Church's discipline and submit my judgment to the Church. Catholics are free to have preferences, but we are not free to place our preferences above the Church.

‼️ @TuckerCarlson has left the Republican Party because he says he “can’t defend it” anymore. Imagine announcing to the world that you can’t defend the party protecting children, defending women, securing the border, standing up for religious liberty, protecting the unborn, and fighting for parents’ rights. When I look at the major battles in America today, I know EXACTLY which side I’m on. Tucker says people will follow him. I doubt many will and I certainly won’t. My allegiance isn’t to a podcaster. It’s to my families and my principles. Convictions don’t disappear when a famous person changes his mind. You don’t abandon your principles because politics gets messy. You hold onto them tighter when it does.

Its a trap!

its at worst a mad house, and Hitler was the expert of that, crazy world, and now time echoes, and we feel it calling, twisting our mind with electric bad vibes, but we run, we run for the prize, you and I and all of us.

The point is that we can discuss something right now, and with out being highly emotional. We have extremely high stakes for ourselves and perhaps the planet.

This is not just some bad luck that caused this:

You can judge recent history as you wish, but it is my opinion its stinks with hell fire.

When the lives of Jews hang in the balance, Jewish sovereignty is not optional — it is the difference between survival and slaughter. Never again will the fate of hundreds of thousands of Jews be left in the hands of others who weigh the value of Jewish lives against “decisive operations.” The Jewish state exists so that never again will Jews be helpless, having to beg strangers to save them while Jewish children burn.

In scholership I see that power corrupts is not a baseless statement. Thought for 5s Yes, scholarship across history, psychology, and political science strongly supports the idea that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton, 1887) as more than a cliché—it's a well-documented pattern with measurable mechanisms. oll.libertyfund.org Core Evidence from ScholarshipHistorical foundation: Lord Acton coined the phrase in a letter criticizing how even well-intentioned leaders (like popes or kings) abused power when unchecked. He argued for consistent moral standards: the greater the power, the stronger the presumption against the holder, as responsibility often lags behind authority. acton.orgNot Deterministic: Power doesn't always corrupt absolutely—virtuous leaders and strong institutions (term limits, transparency, separation of powers) can mitigate it. Some studies show power can enable prosocial behavior if framed as responsibility. But the baseline risk is real and empirically backed. History (from Roman emperors to modern autocrats) and psych data confirm your observation: it's not baseless.

I am glad people didn't use the right side of history line to excuse another attempt at a Nazi world. Shows that we are more aware of what that means, more educated, and able to wake people up. One could say the Nazi's were the most in many catagories of true evil. So its not a topic while eating food.