As someone who grew up going to Cracker Barrel on road trips, I, along with millions of Americans, heaved a sigh of relief when I heard the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cracker-barrel-thought-the-logo-u-turn-would-be-enough-it-wasnt?author=Virginia+Kruta&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Cracker+Barrel+Thought+The+Logo+U-Turn+Would+Be+Enough.+It+Wasn%E2%80%99t.">old logo</a> would remain.
But while we won’t have to endure the Soviet-style brutalist-inspired logo redesign, the new minimalist décor and proposed architectural plans for new stores are still on the menu.
If you aren’t familiar, these architectural plans look suspiciously like those at new Taco Bells (where the current Cracker Barrel CEO was before) — and they’re indistinguishable from those of a small industrial warehouse.
This is yet another example of the push for a Woke Generica from those trying to erase familiar symbols of American art and architecture. But their movement targets more than just symbols — it’s a movement against the entire pioneering and entrepreneurial spirit that defined and built America.
American history is filled with people seeking to fill in the blank edges of the map and build the impossible. For centuries, we’ve been a nation that stood out for our accomplishments. Now, though, we have a corporate culture that overwhelmingly views blending into the crowd as an accomplishment.
One of our greatest entrepreneurs, Henry Ford, warned of this kind of latent unimaginative culture when he said, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” There’s a reason it’s cliché to say that innovators and entrepreneurs expand our horizons.
The most groundbreaking and quality-of-life-uplifting innovations — whether an invention such as the computer, or a business model such as Amazon’s logistical empire — almost always stem from the kind of pioneering risk-taking that is so core to the American identity.
But the new Cracker Barrel redesign is a case study in a futile attempt to simply make a faster horse. And while blandly blending into the background can feel safe, it’s a clear road to stagnation.
In part, what we are seeing is a business world losing perspective with what they actually sell. Only part of a product is its material, functional, form. Whether you call it the vibe, style, or aesthetic, part of the service that people want is what inspires the mind and the soul.
One of the many failings of Eastern European communist societies was their focus on the tangible practicality of things. It was an overtly Marxist pursuit, but it was also — inadvertently — a movement focused on draining artistry out of the ordinary experiences of life and on assaulting our sense of rootedness and belonging.
The man they tried so casually to take off the Cracker Barrel logo isn’t just a generic old man. He’s Uncle Herschel — the real-life uncle of Cracker Barrel founder Dan Evins. He’s also a kind and friendly face, welcoming you into not just the eatery, but the environment that is a Cracker Barrel &#8220;Old Country Store.&#8221;
That environment conjures the spirit of the pioneering West and the ideal of a rural farming community’s gathering place and grocery supplier — featuring a favorite of mine, a wall of a dozen or so unique types of root beer.
But more importantly, that environment reminds us of a crucial and unique piece of our shared national spirit and identity.
Steve Jobs gave warnings about just this sort of thing — about the danger of a business replacing the people who created the product with people focused simply on marketing it without a deep respect for the richness of the product or brand.
Sadly, Cracker Barrel is only the latest in what is now a long line of businesses that have abandoned their purpose and history.
The most stunning example is, perhaps, the Greek tragedy that Disney has turned into — an existence that, over the last 10 years, has cost them the respect of most of their long-time fanbase and 20% of their inflation-adjusted market cap.
The Disney story presents a set of roadmaps that would be useful for Cracker Barrel and, indeed, the broader corporate world today to study.
After the sudden death of Walt Disney in 1966, the company largely lost its sense of soul and purpose and languished for 18 years.
When Michael Eisner came in as CEO in 1984, though, he oversaw the next 15 years of what is now called the Disney Renaissance, featuring “The Little Mermaid,” “Beauty and the Beast,” “The Lion King,” cruise lines, overseas theme-park expansions and many of the things that we now think of as the height of Disney art and culture.
Disney’s stock soared more than twenty-fold in inflation-adjusted terms during this period. But this is more than a simple business success story.
On day one, Eisner went to visit the Disney Imagineers — the people who knew Walt and still embodied the spirit of his vision.
Eisner ignored pressure to pursue what was seen as standard and safe — the pressure to radically depart Disney from its heritage. Instead, he sought to re-embrace that heritage and to rebuild the company in its truly unique style. That made all the difference.
Today, Disney’s current woke stagnation is the product of the last generation or so of abandoning those principles and following the same crowd that brought Cracker Barrel to take the barrel, and Uncle Herschel, off the logo.
Will we sheepishly go down the road of the brutalist logo and woke live action remakes? Or will we go the way of the Disney Renaissance — and reclaim the way of the rugged American pioneer and entrepreneurial innovator?
For now, the market has spoken and saved Cracker Barrel’s logo. But the question remains — and the nation as a whole must answer.
* * *
Richard Stern is Acting Director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation and Director of its Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Trump Says Cracker Barrel Should Restore Old Logo After Backlash

From Uncle Herschel To Mickey Mouse: Cracker Barrel’s Disney Dilemma

Corporations

Cracker Barrel

Disney

Heritage Foundation

Woke Culture

George Carlin had his seven words you can’t say on TV, but today there is only one ineffable (un-sayable) word in American public life. You all know what it is. That one-word ban is due to the unique history and politics of the United States.
Are there any ineffable political beliefs?
In America, not yet. The Constitution’s First Amendment allows us to speak our minds. Other than calling for violent overthrow of the government or the immediate commission of a crime, we can say what we want. That includes bizarre, unpleasant, or even insane beliefs.
But in Australia, Canada, and Europe, free speech on asylum, migration, and national identity is increasingly being curtailed by law.
Western countries are undergoing massive, and often unpopular, demographic change. In democracies, the people have the right to discuss all political issues and decide what their own future should be. Yet increasingly, speech is prescribed, especially in the English-speaking world.
The news site Axios recently <a href="https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-am-0229ba50-fb70-47e4-924a-ed4b931d1c13.html?utm_source=newsletter&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&amp;stream=top">wrote</a> that &#8220;[i]n MAGA&#8217;s telling, America is the heir to ancient European civilizations, built on a Judeo-Christian foundation of white identity, meritocracy and traditional gender roles.&#8221; Axios is clearly trying to be critical here, but what’s their issue?
I’d substitute the race-baiting term “white” with the more accurate “European,” and add something about free markets and free speech, but Axios describes exactly why millions flee the Third World and what they&#8217;re coming to. But as Western countries absorb those millions, the rules on what speech and conduct is acceptable are changing to accommodate them, with government complicity.
As popular dissent grows, opposing the progressive establishment’s insistence that migration is an unalloyed good is increasingly risky. Being a nationalist, meaning putting your nation first. Calling to limit all — not just illegal — migration. Criticizing over-generous and easily-gamed asylum systems.
Advocating for indigenous rights for Europeans. Citing official <a href="https://www.azerbaycan24.com/en/german-politician-convicted-for-sharing-migrant-crime-stats/">statistics</a> that show nationals of some countries commit violent crime at rates many times that of natives. Citing <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/14/britain-pay-for-costs-low-skilled-migration-for-generations/">studies</a> that show low-skilled migrants actually take more in benefits from the fiscal pot over their lifetime than they put in. All these can land one in hot water in some supposedly free countries that are close U.S. allies.
The most toxic topic is the war in the Middle East, which has little connection to the lives of everyday Westerners but inspires demonstrations from <a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/01/13/1224641296/gaza-dc-march-ceasefire-israel-protest">Washington</a>, D.C. to <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/570172/watch-pro-palestinian-protests-across-country-call-on-government-to-sanction-israel">Wellington</a>, NZ.
A two-tier attitude to free speech is rapidly developing across the Anglophone world, where provocative behavior is tolerated from supporters of Palestinians that would have been unimaginable only a generation ago.
In Australia, thousands of <a href="https://apnews.com/video/thousands-rally-at-pro-palestinian-marches-across-australia-1409f7e23ca2493085aa77bc8d361eba">protesters</a> took to the streets recently “demanding that the Australian government take action against Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza,” according to AP News. They chanted “free, free Palestine,” as they waved a Palestinian flags.
In Canada, the group <a href="https://x.com/mtl4palestine/status/1953598884489674804">Montreal4 Palestine</a> has held public Muslim <a href="https://x.com/ThevoiceAlexa/status/1957223530539454540?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1957223530539454540%7Ctwgr%5E2b5d1b302916d487c1c2c13a5cb72e0e7e937e65%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rebelnews.com%2Fwatch_protesters_face_off_against_islamic_public_prayer_in_montreal">prayers</a> outside the Basilica of Notre Dame. Quebec is a French-speaking province and heavily Catholic. The symbolism of Muslim prayers in front of a prominent Catholic church, under flapping Palestinian flags, is powerful. Montreal4 Palestine protesters held a banner saying “we fight, we liberate, we return,” a slogan echoing the goals of Hamas. An opposing group of <a href="https://x.com/ThevoiceAlexa/status/1957205906225049709?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1957205906225049709%7Ctwgr%5E2b5d1b302916d487c1c2c13a5cb72e0e7e937e65%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rebelnews.com%2Fwatch_protesters_face_off_against_islamic_public_prayer_in_montreal">counter-protesters</a> carrying Quebec flags and playing patriotic songs was much smaller.
Meanwhile in England, indigenous people are <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/england-flag-displays-powerful-symbol-immigration-fight-trump-style-populism-sweeps-through-uk">flying</a> the English flag, a cross of St. George on a white background. Some are doing so spontaneously, and others as part of <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/england-flag-displays-powerful-symbol-immigration-fight-trump-style-populism-sweeps-through-uk">Operation Raise the Colours</a>. Critics try and tie it all to far-right extremism, but there is a groundswell to this movement that exceeds the tiny numbers of the radical right in Great Britain.
The London borough of Tower Hamlets and the City Council of Birmingham tore down English flags that had been hung in the streets. The symbolism is clear there too. In Tower Hamlets, Bangladeshis outnumber indigenous (white) British, and the non-English reportedly dominate government-subsidized housing.
Birmingham, a town in the middle of England, was 99.6% indigenous in 1951, but a decade ago, the Daily Mail <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755654/The-changing-face-Britain-A-child-Birmingham-likely-Muslim-Christian.html">reported</a> that “a child in Birmingham is now more likely to be a Muslim than Christian.” Since then, the country has seen mass migration from countries including Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Somalia. Today, indigenous British in Birmingham are under 50%.
The U.K.’s left-wing national broadcaster, the BBC, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx271162ee3o">hints</a> that anyone raising the English or British flags must be a right-wing extremist. The left-wing newspaper the Guardian predictably <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/20/row-grows-over-motives-behind-england-flag-campaign-far-right-racist">claims</a> that putting up English and British flags &#8220;may offer cover for far-right agendas.&#8221; By “far-right,” they include opposition to mass migration, concern about increased sexual violence against girls and women, and fear of cultural disintegration.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">End of Summer Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Opposing mass migration is now an ineffable political position in the left-wing dominated academia, civil service, and media. But it is perfectly understandable and legitimate reaction to enormous demographic change across the Western world.
If current policies and trends continue, that change will make indigenous British a minority in their land within a few generations. Other countries like France and Germany are not far behind. This fate is not inevitable, it is a choice. It will only happen if the people accept it and elect governments accordingly. Putting out more flags perhaps signals that they won’t.
* * *
Simon Hankinson is a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center and the author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ten-Woke-Commandments-Must-Obey/dp/1680533614">&#8220;The Ten Woke Commandments (You Must Not Obey)&#8221;</a> from Academica Books.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

More Than 50,000 Migrants Have Crossed The Channel To The UK Since Labour Came To Power

The Unspeakable Truth About Mass Migration

Australia

Canada

Europe

Free Speech

Great Britain

Immigration

mass migration

Muslims

United States

According to newly released Census Bureau data, all income groups in America advanced more during President Donald Trump’s first term than they did during the Biden administration.
Stephen Moore, a senior visiting fellow in economics at The Heritage Foundation, presented the unpublished data for the first time in an Oval Office presentation with Trump on Thursday. The data divided Americans into three groups: lower income (bottom 25% of earners), middle income (middle 50%), and upper income (top 25%).
“What I find fascinating about this, Mr. President, is every income group did better,” said Moore, displaying a chart showing the percentage gain that accrued on average in each income bracket.
Under President Joe Biden, the lower class, after adjusting for inflation, lost income over the course of four years. The middle-income earners stayed about the same. But the upper income earners did noticeably better, according to Moore.
“The rich were the only group that did better under Biden, which is ironic because Biden keeps saying he was trying to get rid of income inequality. He made income inequality worse, not better,” Moore said. “It was President Trump that reduced income inequality.”
The economist tallied the numbers in dollars, as well, showing that the lower income gained about $4,000 in annual revenue over Trump’s first term. The middle income gained about $6,400 in annual earnings, and the wealthiest earned $10,000 more a year from the start of Trump’s first term to its end.
The data takes into account the COVID pandemic, which hit at the end of Trump’s first term and caused a general dip in income.
In addition to data on income growth, Moore also showed graphs on Bureau of Labor Statistics data and median household income during Trump’s first months of his second term. In the first five months of Trump’s second term, the average household’s income has increased by an inflation-adjusted $1,174, Moore said.
Trump last week fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, after the bureau, responsible for collecting and releasing jobs data on the U.S. economy every month, issued a significant downward correction this month on data for May and June.
“Revisions for May and June were larger than normal,” the agency <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fewer-jobs-than-expected-added-in-july-as-unemployment-holds-steady">said</a> in a report issued August 1. “The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for May was revised down by 125,000, from +144,000 to +19,000, and the change for June was revised  down by 133,000, from +147,000 to +14,000.”
Moore supported Trump’s decision to fire the agency head, citing similar significant corrections that were made to jobs data under Biden, which Moore said showed “incompetence.” Trump, however, told Moore he believed the figures had been deliberately manipulated.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨<a href="https://twitter.com/StephenMoore?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@StephenMoore</a> presents new economic data in the Oval Office with <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>:
&#8220;Mr. President, you gained ten times more income for the average family than Joe Biden.&#8221;
&#8220;Every income group did better under Trump than Biden — by a wide margin.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/VIGjGf14YO">pic.twitter.com/VIGjGf14YO</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1953554707668254767?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 7, 2025</a></blockquote>

Stephen Moore, Donald Trump

Trump Economy Beat Biden’s For All Americans, Economist Says

Trump Economy Beat Biden’s for All Americans, Economist Says

Donald Trump

Economics

Economy

Executive

Joe Biden

Politics

For Uber, it’s time to get either new lawyers or new executives, because its new “Women Preferences” policy is obvious sex discrimination that violates the law. If we owned stock in the company, we’d sell it to avoid a loss from the big-dollar lawsuits that are sure to ensue for this ham-fisted “equity” scheme.
Recently, Uber <a href="https://www.uber.com/newsroom/women-preferences/">announced</a> that in the interests of making its “platform better for women,” it is implementing a “Women Preferences” pilot program that will give women riders &#8220;more ways to choose rides with women drivers&#8221; and women drivers the option “to request trips with women riders, including during peak earning hours like evenings.” In other words, Uber will be empowering its drivers to ignore, that is, discriminate against, male riders. Kind of reminds one of a time when taxi drivers all too often sped up and drove past black residents trying to hail them for a ride. Now, such conduct is prohibited by law.
The only difference between the racist taxi drivers of old and the sexist Uber drivers of new is that the digital “drive-by” discrimination is based on sex instead of race. But both are prohibited under the law.
Uber’s announcement claims this new policy is “designed to give women riders and drivers more choice, more confidence, and more flexibility.” However, “more choice, more confidence, and more flexibility” does not provide a company with a license to violate state and federal anti-discrimination laws.
Uber also brags in its announcement that it started this program in, of all places, Saudi Arabia. You know, one of the world’s most discriminatory countries, where women are treated as second-class citizens.
Yes, you read that right. Uber started its “Women Preferences” pilot program in the unenlightened Middle Eastern nation only after Saudi Arabia finally gave women the right to drive in 2019. That’s a remarkable delay, given that the first woman to be <a href="https://transportationhistory.org/2022/03/02/women-in-transportation-history-anne-rainsford-french-bush-automotive-pioneer/">issued</a> a driver’s license in the District of Columbia (Anne Rainsford French) received it in 1900. But what more would one expect from a nation that didn’t grant women the right to vote for the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35075702">first time</a> until 2015?
Uber’s lawyers seem to need a refresher on the law.
As a company incorporated in California, Uber is subject to the state’s <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&amp;sectionNum=51">Unruh Civil Rights Act</a>, which prohibits discrimination by all business establishments open to the public in California. Among others, it applies to hotels, restaurants, stores, theaters, taxis, and yes, rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft. California-based businesses that serve the public must treat everyone equally — regardless of their race, religion, sex, or disability, among other protected characteristics.
What’s more, federal law — the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act">Civil Rights Act of 1964</a> — prohibits discrimination in public accommodations as well. And while sex is not a protected category under Title II of the Civil Rights Act (like race is), Title VII of that same Act prohibits sex discrimination and harassment in employment contexts. That means that male Uber drivers who are not provided with the same sex-selective rider options as their female colleagues may have a claim for discriminatory treatment under that federal law, as well.
This isn’t the first time that the rideshare company has been accused of violating civil rights law. In 2017, Uber <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/uber-pay-44-million-resolve-eeoc-sexual-harassment-and-retaliation-charge#:~:text=The%20pre%2Dlitigation%20agreement%20was,retaliation%20after%20January%201%2C%202014.">agreed</a> to pay out $4.4 million in fees to settle a class-action lawsuit charging that the company had failed to adequately address sexual harassment by its drivers against female passengers. The same year, Uber software engineer Susan Fowler wrote a blog post that went viral in which she <a href="https://time.com/5784464/susan-fowler-book-uber-sexual-harassment/">accused</a> the Silicon Valley-based company of sex discrimination and harassment — both violations of Title VII.
And in 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Uber, alleging that the company had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by charging wait time fees to riders with disabilities who took longer to get in Uber vehicles. Uber eventually agreed to <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/uber-commits-changes-and-pays-millions-resolve-justice-department-lawsuit-overcharging-people#:~:text=(Uber)%20to%20resolve%20a%20lawsuit,discriminatory%20fees%20due%20to%20disability.">settle</a> the lawsuit, and paid millions in compensation to affected riders.
Uber’s new policy also allows riders to “select the ‘Women Drivers’ option when requesting a ride.”
If you want to avoid a taxi, bus, train, or airplane because you don’t like the race or sex of the driver or pilot, you can do that. While that might evidence questionable moral beliefs, it doesn’t violate state or federal law — after all, consumers exercise preference in the market all the time. But the private companies and local governments who own those taxis, buses, trains, and airplanes cannot engage in the same type of discriminatory “preferencing.”
Uber is rolling out this program in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Detroit, and says it is doing so “after extensive testing and feedback from global markets like Saudi Arabia, Germany, and France, where women-only options have been well received.”
Uber’s conduct in “global markets like Saudi Arabia” is blatantly illegal in the United States, regardless of whether it’s “well received” or not.
* * *
Hans von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Justice Department.
Sarah Parshall Perry is the Vice President and Legal Fellow of Defending Education and former counsel to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Crowdsourced taxi driver talking to a passenger in the back seat

Uber’s New ‘Women Preferences’ Program Violates Civil Rights Law

Uber’s New 'Women Preferences' Program Violates Civil Rights Law

Civil Rights

Discrimination

Saudi Arabia

Silicon Valley

Uber

Women

Planned Parenthood&#8217;s annual report looks different this year.
Not only does this report lack the rainbow pride flare of its predecessors — it also omits the most innovative moneymaker from its list of services reported. But did Planned Parenthood simply forget to mention “gender-affirming care,&#8221; or are they trying to push their skeletons deeper into the closet while their funding hangs in limbo?
In past reports, Planned Parenthood lumped “transgender services” in the “other procedures” subcategory. This unassuming breakdown actually triggered high levels of scrutiny after its tally leapt from 15,902 services in the 2020-2021 <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/40/8f/408fc2ad-c8c2-48da-ad87-be5cc257d370/211214-ppfa-annualreport-20-21-c3-digital.pdf" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/40/8f/408fc2ad-c8c2-48da-ad87-be5cc257d370/211214-ppfa-annualreport-20-21-c3-digital.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3jpqIKazkCRJZgLqNQioyL">report</a> to 256,550 services <a href="https://cdn.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/25/ed/25ed2675-fbbc-453b-8b35-f8ddaa025b57/281222-ppfa-annualreport-c3-digital.pdf" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://cdn.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/25/ed/25ed2675-fbbc-453b-8b35-f8ddaa025b57/281222-ppfa-annualreport-c3-digital.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1nJQ2awIJdIsrdoueYgxZU">a year later</a>. Though their total services did reflect a 5% general increase, likely due to COVID, the subcategory specifically reporting “transgender services” outpaced the increase, marking an unprecedented 1,514% increase.
This hike garnered the attention of national conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation, which <a href="https://www.heritage.org/life/commentary/planned-parenthood-taxpayer-funding-abortion-and-transgender-services-high" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.heritage.org/life/commentary/planned-parenthood-taxpayer-funding-abortion-and-transgender-services-high&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2Oq-ZeDgxbFM1hVimhF-8R">said</a> this “so-called gender-affirming care” was the abortion giant’s “game plan” after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade. While states exercise freedom to evaluate standards for harmful abortion procedures, Planned Parenthood appears to guarantee a profit nonetheless. Exploiting and promoting modern trans agendas through cross-sex hormone distribution locks in patient dependency, rather than their historic and unstable in-and-out abortion mill business model.
In its 2023-2024 report, Planned Parenthood appears to have shied away from its new radical gender agenda that you would expect to plaster nearly every page. In fact, there are few mentions of “transgender” outside of its small hiding place in the “other procedures” footnote.
That’s where the real mystery begins.
Over the past year, the &#8220;other procedures&#8221; category dropped 56%, down from 177,237 to 77,858. Everyone who lives within 25 miles of a Planned Parenthood knows they have not taken their foot off the transgender gas, so this drop does not pass the simple smell test.
According to the report, this subcategory accounts for WIC services, pediatric care, transgender services, other adult preventative care, and high complexity visits, including infertility services. But even assuming this entire subcategory is composed entirely of transgender services, the numbers still don&#8217;t add up.
The Planned Parenthood Annual Report aggregates the data from local affiliates, some of whom release their own annual reports and are not so shy about their trans involvement.
This is where we see Planned Parenthood’s true ground game in action. Local clinic numbers have continued to skyrocket. For example, in <a href="https://pppswimpactreport.org/archive/2023/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pppswimpactreport.org/archive/2023/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw29ggnnUGuXI5FmZzrMnEDP">2023</a>, Planned Parenthood Pacific Southwest boasted an 85% increase in “gender affirming hormone therapy” (GAHT), reporting 2,549 services in the year. However, they managed another significant increase the following year, racking up <a href="https://pppswimpactreport.org/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://pppswimpactreport.org/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw28OPbcgt8ApKI5EJ8bzeZT">3,433</a> services.
These affiliates report upwards of <a href="https://www.ppmmimpactreport.org/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.ppmmimpactreport.org/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3AZ1D04ojiCRuzYnpytSEK">10,174</a>, <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/84/35/843512f4-65f6-4b75-9a88-262ebb571267/2023_impact_report.pdf" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/84/35/843512f4-65f6-4b75-9a88-262ebb571267/2023_impact_report.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw019wgHaQ1sspZcwKFHTZpi">11,134</a>, and even <a href="https://publuu.com/flip-book/654838/1460126/page/4" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://publuu.com/flip-book/654838/1460126/page/4&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3pxAzRYNhqfA_HXVZAlLsv">17,270</a> “gender-affirming care” (GAC) or GAHT visits each in their areas. Reports <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/d0/9c/d09c416e-dbc3-4ab5-919a-3b6f65ac6740/2024_annual_report_digital.pdf" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/d0/9c/d09c416e-dbc3-4ab5-919a-3b6f65ac6740/2024_annual_report_digital.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0iqOtGoSH6DWoGTaMfYIeu">clarify</a> “many patients receive multiple services in a single visit.” Further, some clinics report the total number of GAC/GAHT patients. For example, <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/35/12/35125771-82dd-4e1d-b081-c916350fe174/2025_gratitude_report_final.pdf" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/35/12/35125771-82dd-4e1d-b081-c916350fe174/2025_gratitude_report_final.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1TNsuKFQaG5RHp1q9CjYgI">North Central</a> region reports 5,796 GAHT patients, but likely had significantly more total visits and services.
Only about half of Planned Parenthood’s total affiliates have released 2024 GAC/GAHT numbers, and by the most conservative summation, they outpace Planned Parenthood&#8217;s entire “other services” category on a national level. The available reports categorize 11,680 patients, 8,399 services, and 71,924 visits. Even if you only count “patients” and “visits” once, that totals 87,668. That is almost 10,000 more than the entire category supposedly aggregating transgender services, infertility services, WIC services, and more.
Why won’t Planned Parenthood honestly disclose their involvement with “gender affirming care”?
Planned Parenthood has cashed in <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/funding-the-nations-largest-abortion-provider-an-investigation-into-public-and-private-support-of-planned-parenthood/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://lozierinstitute.org/funding-the-nations-largest-abortion-provider-an-investigation-into-public-and-private-support-of-planned-parenthood/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3ARXcyqVF0o8HHVYUuT3rf">billions</a> of dollars from the American taxpayer, and their funding stream seemed like it would always grow — that is, until Congress finally cut them off for a year in the One Big Beautiful Bill. But before that, they received $792.2 million last year, according to the recent annual report. Washington Stand’s Ben Johnson <a href="https://washingtonstand.com/news/planned-parenthood-committed-402230-abortions-received-7922-million-in-taxpayer-funding-in-2024" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://washingtonstand.com/news/planned-parenthood-committed-402230-abortions-received-7922-million-in-taxpayer-funding-in-2024&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1Vb9aIg54lEmWgzy0rijpw">reported</a>, “U.S. taxpayers became Planned Parenthood’s largest financial contributor, supplying 39% of the organization’s $2 billion in revenue — up from 34% in the last report.”
Planned Parenthood knows its dealing of cross-sex hormones to <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-california-central-coast/patient-resources/gender-affirming-care" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-california-central-coast/patient-resources/gender-affirming-care&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3AgriE7fHtBz-nJM9GawJ5">kids</a> violates the will of its financial base, taxpayers. In <a href="https://concernedwomen.org/concerned-women-for-america-applauds-supreme-court-decision-upholding-south-carolinas-medicaid-funding-law-in-medina-v-planned-parenthood-south-atlantic/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://concernedwomen.org/concerned-women-for-america-applauds-supreme-court-decision-upholding-south-carolinas-medicaid-funding-law-in-medina-v-planned-parenthood-south-atlantic/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3d-MLHFrlVJxZd19i1hkMo">Medina v. Planned Parenthood</a>, the Supreme Court affirmed a state’s discretion to disqualify Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid recipient. If Planned Parenthood plans to make a case to keep funding, they will need to address their transparency issues; their recent report clearly hides gender affirming care in the dark.
But federal representatives are exposing the light. DOGE Subcommittee Chair Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) launched an <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/release/doge-subcommittee-chairwoman-greene-investigates-planned-parenthoods-misuse-of-federal-funds/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://oversight.house.gov/release/doge-subcommittee-chairwoman-greene-investigates-planned-parenthoods-misuse-of-federal-funds/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1753288184589000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0rAGxXED9KHicKzssd8pVZ">investigation</a> into Planned Parenthood’s “misuse of federal funds,” requesting “ financial statements, federal funding, and documents pertaining to its abortion and &#8216;gender affirming&#8217; medical and surgical interventions on children.”
Greene wrote Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill, requesting financial statements, guidance for “gender affirming care” compliance, records concerning the collection or donation of aborted fetal tissue for research/experimentation, and more.
The Subcommittee’s deadline was June 27, 2025. They have not publicly acknowledged any response from Planned Parenthood.
It’s time for reckoning. The American people demand answers for how Planned Parenthood spent their money, and it may take a subpoena from Congress to get an honest answer.
Macy Petty is Legislative Strategist for the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee dedicated to promoting Biblical values and Constitutional principles in public policy.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Last Abortion Clinic In Missouri Forced To Close At End Of May

Planned Parenthood Is Hiding ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ In Its Annual Report

LGBTQ

Planned Parenthood

Transgender

The conservative movement lost one of its founding fathers this week.
Dr. Edwin J. Feulner built the intellectual foundation upon which modern conservatism stands, and gave us the institutions — like the Heritage Foundation and the Republican Study Committee — that work tirelessly to defend it.
As the Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, I stand on the shoulders of this giant. Ed Feulner didn&#8217;t just participate in the conservative revolution — he engineered it, fundamentally transforming how conservative ideas reach the halls of power and become the policies that strengthen families and communities across America.
Ed understood something that too many in Washington forget: people are policy. This was more than just a phrase to him, it was at the center of everything he built. He knew that lasting change doesn&#8217;t come from eloquent speeches but from developing principled leaders who will fight for American values year after year.
The Republican Study Committee exists today because Ed saw what was needed before anyone else did. Working as a congressional aide in the early 1970s, he recognized that conservative members of Congress needed an organizational home. A place to develop policy, coordinate strategy, and advance the principles that make America exceptional. As the Republican Study Committee’s founder, Ed created what became the largest caucus in Congress and the intellectual engine of the House conservative movement.
His influence on the Republican Study Committee and Capitol Hill at large cannot be overstated. Every bill we produce, every strategy session we hold, and every fight we wage bears his fingerprints. The Study Committee’s current membership of 189 House Republicans stands as a testament to his vision.
But Ed&#8217;s vision reached far beyond Congress. When he founded the Heritage Foundation in 1973, he built a beacon for truth in a city too often corrupted by power. Under his leadership, Heritage rapidly evolved into the strategic braintrust that would fuel Ronald Reagan&#8217;s conservative revolution. Ed transformed how conservative ideas move from theory to reality, creating an intellectual machine that could produce policy solutions at the speed of politics rather than the pace of academia.
What made Ed truly exceptional wasn&#8217;t just his strategic brilliance. It was his unwavering optimism and absolute refusal to be discouraged. He lived by another favorite saying: &#8220;In Washington, there are no permanent victories and no permanent defeats.&#8221; This recognition that the fight for freedom requires constant vigilance drove everything he did.
Ed embodied the best of American conservatism: principled without being rigid, strategic without being calculating, and always focused on mission over personal glory. He understood that our movement wins through multiplication and addition, not division and subtraction. He brought together diverse voices around shared principles, building lasting coalitions that could govern.
The bond between the Republican Study Committee and the Heritage Foundation remains strong today because of the foundations Ed laid. Both institutions continue advancing the conservative principles he championed, working hand-in-hand to develop policy solutions and train the next generation of leaders. The Republican Study Committee’s members regularly benefit from Heritage research, just as Heritage benefits from the committee’s legislative expertise. This is precisely the kind of mutually-beneficial relationship Ed envisioned.
Even in his later years, Ed remained actively engaged in the conservative cause. His continued involvement in preparing conservative policy blueprints demonstrated that his commitment never wavered. He understood that each generation must be equipped to carry the torch of freedom forward.
The institutions Ed built will endure, but more importantly, the leaders he mentored will continue his work. From the Republican Study Committee to the Heritage Foundation, from state capitals to corporate boardrooms, the men and women Ed influenced are advancing conservative principles with the same courage and determination he modeled.
As President Reagan once stated, Ed was &#8220;a combination of many things: intellectual, administrator, politician, diplomat, but most of all, dreamer and darer.&#8221; That combination of the ability to dream big and dare to make those dreams reality is what made Ed irreplaceable to our movement.
Ed&#8217;s legacy extends far beyond any accomplishment. He was a devoted husband to his wife, Linda, and a beloved father and grandfather. In his life and work, he showed us that devotion to limited government and freedom can build institutions that outlast any single generation.
The conservative movement will honor Ed&#8217;s memory by advancing his vision with unwavering commitment to the founding ideals that make America exceptional. The Republican Study Committee will continue the work he started, developing conservative policy and leaders for generations to come.
Feulner’s work lives on in all of us who believe America&#8217;s best days lie ahead. We will continue to fight for the values he espoused and the movement he built. As he was so fond of saying:
&#8220;Onward. Always.&#8221;
Congressman August Pfluger represents Texas&#8217;s 11th district in the House of Representatives, where he chairs the Republican Study Committee.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

AP-FEULNER

A Tribute To Ed Feulner, Founding Father Of American Conservatism

Congress

Conservatism

House Republicans

So far, Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year old who won the Democratic primary for New York City mayor, is still just a candidate. But in heavily Democratic New York, the Republican, radio host Curtis Sliwa, has little chance of winning. A recent <a href="https://www.racetothewh.com/nycmayorpolling">poll</a> puts Mamdani at 36.4% compared to Sliwa’s 16.3%.
That means the only man standing between Mamdani and the mayor’s office is Eric Adams, a Democrat who last year was <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/new-york-city-mayor-eric-adams-charged-bribery-and-campaign-finance-offenses">charged</a> with bribery and campaign finance violations. He has also angered his own party by failing to oppose immigration enforcement as much as other “sanctuary city” mayors like Chicago’s Brandon Johnson or Los Angeles’s Karen Bass.
New Yorkers have heard some of Mamdani’s proposals: rent control, free buses, higher taxes on higher earners, city-owned grocery stores, freeing criminal suspects without bail, legalizing prostitution, and replacing some police with social workers.
If one is unfamiliar with history, these promises might sound good. As the Babylon Bee put it, “<a href="https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-discover-innovative-strategy-of-promising-free-stuff-to-stupid-people">Democrats Discover Innovative Strategy of Promising Free Stuff to Stupid People</a>.” This is funny, but unfair. There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. New Yorkers aren’t stupid. And plenty of smart people are ignorant – meaning they just don’t know certain things.
Like how New York was back in the 1980s. Those of us who remember the city when Times Square was a den of squalor will know that Sliwa also founded the Guardian Angels, the red-beret sporting extended neighborhood watch that rode the subway to fight crime.
But that was 40 years ago. Most New Yorkers today have no direct experience with that era. At least half of them weren’t educated in New York; they came from abroad or from other states. Nationally, only 13% of U.S. eighth graders are <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=1160">proficient</a> in American history. I doubt they know much more about world history, or how “<a href="https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/we-must-educate-future-generations-the-myths-and-realities-socialism">true socialism</a>” worked when tried.
Those who were raised in New York mostly went through a public school system where, a <a href="https://medium.com/@newyorkteacher/update-guess-all-bs-on-nys-january-regents-exam-3dd8f2a0a713">researcher found</a>, students could pass a math exam by just guessing answer “C” every time.
Some New Yorkers may not know what Mamdani means by “socialism,” “Boycott, Divest, Sanction (BDS),” and “owning the means of production,” which he talked about in this short clip <a href="https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1939516740909621286">posted</a> to X by @EndWokeness. Let me briefly explain.
“Socialism” is how communists describe themselves. Look at the now-defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the current communist countries, the People’s Republic of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cuba, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and the Lao People’s Republic – none of them mentions “communism” in its name or its official description of itself.
The only thing that makes the American version “Democratic,” as in the “Democratic Socialists of America” organization that Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Summer Lee belong to, is that they seek to come to power through elections, rather than violent revolution.
The “BDS” Mamdani wants is about Israel. The <a href="https://bdsmovement.net/what-bds">BDS movement</a> is a “Palestinian-led movement” that seeks to force Israel to accept a Palestinian state on dictated terms by pressuring governments and private companies to boycott (meaning not buy) Israeli goods and services; divest (meaning pull out all investments in Israel and Israeli companies); and sanction (meaning bans on business, finance, travel, etc.).
When he says he wants to “raise class consciousness,” Mamdani is talking about Karl Marx’s vision for how capitalist societies turn communist. Once the worker masses realize they are being exploited, Marxist theory goes, they will overthrow capitalism, take over the government, and “establish a more equitable society.” (Yes, that’s the same “equity” as in DEI, the ideology that captured Western <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7524478/">governments</a>, <a href="https://www.ie.edu/insights/articles/education-for-a-more-equitable-society/">education</a>, <a href="https://www.unitedwaygcr.org/news/together-we-can-build-more-just-and-equitable-society">NGOs</a>, and <a href="https://www.unilever.com/news/news-search/2021/how-we-will-help-build-a-more-equitable-and-inclusive-society/">companies</a>).
Mamdani said the “end goal” of socialism is “seizing the means of production,” by which he means the government taking over factories, companies, mines, energy producers, farms, restaurants, service providers, your aunt’s Etsy page – anything or anyone that creates value, from a Barbie doll to an F-150 truck. The core idea of socialism is that all of it should be taken from private ownership and given to the government to run.
The government will then decide what each of us needs to live on – “<a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm">from each, according to his abilities; to each, according to his needs</a>.” If this sounds familiar, it&#8217;s because it has been tried before – first in the USSR, then in China, Cuba, North Korea, and in various countries in between in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America. And with a 100% failure rate.
Every time, once the coveted “means of production” got into the hands of government functionaries — who inevitably grew corrupt — they ceased to produce efficiently and were run into the ground. Under socialism, instead of markets efficiently allocating capital to industry to produce what people need and want, bureaucrats do it through central planning, resulting in starvation, poverty, and misery.
China might be seen as a slight exception to the rule, but that’s only because it ditched much of communism’s economic orthodoxy and let favored people make money, while keeping the corrupt, nepotistic structure of the Communist Party and its social control machinery.
Mamdani reminds us “we need to remember what the stakes are.” He’s right. He’s smart, charming, and media savvy, which makes it all the more important that New Yorkers closely scrutinize his past and current comments and policy positions.
If Mamdani makes it to Gracie Mansion and keeps his promises, he will bring socialism to New York City, good and hard. It will work just as well as it ever did. And some of Manhattan’s wealthy residents will react just like Havana’s did in 1959 – they’ll go to Miami.
* * *
Simon Hankinson is a Senior Research Fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, and author of the forthcoming book “The Woke Ten Commandments (You Must Not Obey)” from Academica Press.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

US-POLITICS-NEW YORK-MAMDANI

Socialism In A Designer Suit: NYC Is In For A Hard Lesson If Mamdani Is Elected

Communism

Democratic Socialism

New York City

Opinion

Zohran Mamdani

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s latest opinion pitted her against her fellow liberals on the bench and revealed her to be far less prepared for her weighty role than her peers, according to a legal expert.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, said Jackson’s dissent in a Wednesday court opinion showed her as unserious and unfit for the role of Supreme Court justice.
“What it tells me is that Brown Jackson is really at the far end of the spectrum and that the other justices are getting tired of her,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Wire.
Jackson was the lone dissenter in a court opinion that cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin crafting plans to downsize the federal workforce. The junior justice wrote that the majority opinion is “not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another liberal on the high court, wrote a concurrence siding with the majority
“I agree with Justice Jackson that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates,” wrote Sotomayor. “Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law’ … and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much.”
The court opinion and the split on the bench suggests that Jackson is ill-equipped to handle the intellectual rigors of the Supreme Court, according to von Spakovsky.
“This case was eight-to-one. Even justices Sotomayor and [Elena] Kagan joined with the majority because they didn&#8217;t want a dissent in this particular case,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Wire. “Only the lone dissenter, Brown Jackson, was once again, you know, engaging in an emotional tirade about the idea that — horror, shock — federal employees might actually lose their jobs.”
Jackson has been singled out in other cases as well. In a court decision last month over “birthright citizenship,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-amy-coney-barrett-lays-the-legal-smackdown-on-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson">suggested</a> that Jackson’s dissenting argument was vacuous, or at least not motivated by any serious legal theory.
“The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,” wrote Barrett. “JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query … she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”
“I disagree often with what Justice Kagan and Sotomayor put in their decisions, but they at least try to have a legal basis for what they’re saying,” von Spakovsky said.
Jackson claims Trump’s plans to downsize the federal government is &#8220;needless&#8221; and &#8220;there’s no need for getting rid of federal employees,&#8221; von Spakovsky added. “That&#8217;s a policy decision. That&#8217;s got nothing to do with the law. That’s got nothing to do with the constitutional authority of the president to run the executive branch.&#8221;
&#8220;I think it&#8217;s just another sign that, frankly, she was a big mistake getting put on the court, and that she just doesn&#8217;t have the legal acumen to be on the court,&#8221; von Spakovsky said. &#8220;Sotomayor, Kagan, they do, even though I think they&#8217;re often wrong, but I don&#8217;t think [Jackson] does.&#8221;

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Even Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Liberal SCOTUS Colleagues Tire Of Her Weak Arguments

Sonia Sotomayor

Supreme Court

Dying civilizations reveal themselves in familiar ways. Faith is abandoned, culture is drained of meaning, and the will to defend the home is eroded. But there are two unmistakable signs that a civilization is in mortal danger: when its people cease to build families — and when it tolerates invasion without resistance.
In 2006, Pat Buchanan raised a warning to the American people: “We are entered upon the final act of our civilization. The last scene is the deconstruction of the nations. The penultimate scene, now well underway, is the invasion unresisted.”
What the American people are witnessing in Los Angeles is that penultimate scene. Flying the flags of foreign lands, the barbarians have stormed the gates. They bear no loyalty to America, no reverence for her inheritance, and no desire to become part of her family.
Millions of deportable aliens fill American cities and hold American jobs, but they are strangers in our midst. Not because sanctuary cities like Los Angeles have failed to welcome them, but because they intend to tear down the permanent things that make this nation worth belonging to.
The Republic has been invaded. We need mass deportations. Not someday. Now.
Mass deportations are fiscally responsible, morally just, and <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-trump-deportation-program-nets-positive-approval-contrasting-views-on-scope/ar-AA1GjePH?ocid=BingNewsSerp">politically popular</a>. Flying someone safely home is possibly the most merciful consequence for violating our laws. Mass deportation is not extreme — it is the moderate, moral alternative to chaos that any serious nation would take to defend its borders. And while some might criticize the amount of funding that this endeavor requires, you can’t put a price on the safety and well-being of the American people.
Approximately <a href="https://www.fairus.org/issue/how-many-illegal-aliens-are-united-states-2025-update">18.6 million</a> illegal aliens reside in the United States. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a backlog of more than nine million pending immigration benefit applications. Another 3.5 million cases are backlogged in the DOJ immigration court system. To restore our immigration system (both legal and illegal), we should <a href="https://static.heritage.org/-2025/NewAmericanImmigration_Booklet.pdf?_gl=1*tgx60l*_gcl_au*Nzg2MzEyMDc1LjE3NDIzMTI3MjU.*_ga*MTgxNTg1ODk1MS4xNzM0NDUwMTI4*_ga_W14BT6YQ87*czE3NDk1MjMzMzckbzE0MCRnMSR0MTc0OTUyMzM0MSRqNTYkbDAkaDA.">pause intake</a> of additional applications, including employment authorization documents. In the meantime, the administration can work to remove all deportable aliens between now and January 19, 2029.
This will take both resources and courage — but the American people support the goal. Six months into the Trump administration, the President’s <a href="https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1932107479976128956">approval rating</a> on immigration is “surging like a rocket,” according to CNN.
Now, Congress must act — and pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with urgency.
The President of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, is <a href="https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1931834653889134879">calling for protests</a> in the United States and threatening mobilizations over a minuscule 3.5% tax on remittances. In response to such threats, Congress should use reconciliation to increase the remittance tax to at least 15% — as Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) has rightfully <a href="https://x.com/Eric_Schmitt/status/1931880241188024476">proposed</a>. It is immoral for foreigners to break our laws, only to then wire dollars that ultimately fund the regimes and networks undermining us.
Congress must also do its job and deliver all the resources necessary to enforce our laws and restore order: expanded ICE funding for detention beds, agents, transportation, and legal support; the permanent codification of President Trump’s proven border policies; and the end of legal gamesmanship that allows illegal aliens to exploit endless appeals and paralyze the system.
Deportable aliens who are put into removal proceedings should not be granted endless chances to delay justice. They previously had due process opportunities to apply for a visa or refugee protection to lawfully enter the U.S. and, once in the U.S., to seek a lawful benefit, including asylum, with DHS. Once an alien is in removal proceedings, the only question should be: is the alien deportable as charged?
The days of surrendering our sovereignty to process lawyers and activist judges must end.
We must institute mandatory E-Verify. No work permits should be granted unless — and until — an immigration benefit has been lawfully approved. Simply filing an application must not become a backdoor pass to employment in the United States. The rule must be simple: no approval, no work.
Asylum fraud is the Trojan horse of the current crisis. We must close it.
And we must <a href="https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment">end</a> universal birthright citizenship and chain migration. Only the children of American citizens should have automatic birthright citizenship. And family-based immigration means nuclear family only. Gone will be the days of migration chains that allow aliens, not Americans, to decide who comes here permanently.
Mass deportations are necessary not only to bring back law and order and protect the working class, but also to restore the full political rights of every American. While the Trump administration has rightfully prioritized the deportations of violent criminals, mass deportations require extending far beyond that. Allowing any illegal alien to stay not only erodes law and order but undermines the blessings of American citizenship — especially for those in deep-blue states.
The American people are ready. The President is ready. Now Congress must be ready.
We will not witness the end of the American Republic — unless we choose to.
* * *
Kevin Roberts, Ph.D., is president of The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action for America.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Protests Erupt In L.A. County Sparked By Federal Immigration Raids

Why America Needs Mass Deportations Now

Department of Homeland Security

Deportations

illegal alien

Illegal Immigation

Los Angeles

President Trump

Riots

Years ago, my husband and I were on a family trip in the Bahamas, staying at the Atlantis resort. One afternoon, we wandered through their underground aquarium caves, marveling at the marine life. A little girl stood transfixed by a tank of moray eels, their jagged teeth gleaming ominously. Her mother shuddered, remarking, “Those are scary, aren’t they?” Undeterred, the girl darted to the next exhibit — a tank of barracudas — and exclaimed, “There’s something more awful than that, Mummy!”
Her innocent quest for the next frightful spectacle stuck with me, and lately, it’s become a metaphor for the conservative movement’s obsession with outrage.
On platforms like X, I see a similar pattern unfolding daily. A post about a classroom poster in Wisconsin — declaring, “If your parents aren’t accepting of your identity, I’m your mom now,” with rainbow flags and cartoon bears — ignites a firestorm. Commenters pile on, each trying to outdo the last: “This is grooming!” “It’s a cult!” “Wait until you hear about what’s happening in another district!”
The refrain echoes that little girl’s cry: There’s something more awful than that. We’re trapped in an outrage cycle, endlessly seeking the next shocking story about what’s happening to our kids, from controversial school policies to perceived overreaches by educators. But this one-upmanship isn’t moving us forward — it’s keeping us stuck.
The conservative movement has mastered the art of highlighting what’s wrong, and that awareness is crucial. Parents need to know when their rights are being undermined, whether by schools, government policies, or cultural shifts. But awareness alone isn’t enough. We can’t keep pointing to the next “awful” thing without channeling that energy into action.
Outrage may grab attention, but it’s the steps we take afterward that create change. It’s time to shift our focus from amplifying the problem to building solutions — and that’s exactly what we’re doing at the Heritage Foundation.
I’m thrilled to lead the newly launched Parental Rights Network at Heritage, and I’m joined by Pat Blackburn, a passionate advocate who brings invaluable experience to this fight. Together, we’re taking the lessons we learned from our time at Moms for Liberty — where we saw the power of grassroots organizing and the hunger parents have to protect their role in their children’s lives — and using them to create real momentum in the parental rights and family empowerment movement.
The Parental Rights Network is designed to foster collaboration and create momentum by connecting individuals and groups across the country. Anyone can join the Network through a link on our landing page, opening the door to a community dedicated to strengthening parental rights.
Our mission is clear: we want to move beyond the outrage cycle and toward tangible outcomes. That means equipping parents with the tools to advocate for their rights, connecting them with like-minded communities, and pushing for policies that prioritize parental authority over government overreach.
To make this happen, we’re hosting weekly calls where members can share resources, tools, and information, and connect with others across the country to build a stronger, unified movement. We’ll also send out a weekly newsletter recapping key updates, insights, and opportunities to stay engaged. Instead of just sharing the next alarming story, we’re encouraging parents to take action — attend a school board meeting, engage with local lawmakers, or join forces with other families to demand transparency and accountability in every aspect when it comes to their kids.
The Network isn’t just about pointing out what’s wrong. It’s about building a coalition that can right those wrongs.
The conservative movement has a choice. We can keep chasing “something more awful than that,” letting outrage define our response, or we can harness that energy to create a future where parents are empowered and respected as the primary decision-makers for their children. At the Parental Rights Network, we’re choosing the latter. Join us by signing up through our landing page, participating in our weekly calls, and staying informed with our newsletter.
Together, we can move from outrage to action — because our kids deserve more than a cycle of anger; they deserve a movement that delivers real change.
* * *
Tiffany Justice is the chair of the Parental Rights Initiative at the Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Correction: A previous subheading to this article read &#8220;Moms for Liberty joins forces with The Heritage Foundation to create real momentum for parental rights.&#8221; Moms for Liberty, however, is not working directly with the Heritage Foundation. We regret the error.

Schoolgirl runs from school bus to hug mother

Beyond Outrage: A Call To Action For Conservative Parents

Children

Education

Parental Rights in Education

Parents rights

Public Schools

It’s not an exaggeration to say that conservative shareholder engagement is changing the corporate game. For years, Left-wing activists controlled the agendas at our largest companies, using not only their leverage as stockholders but their perpetual devotion to activism to get in the ear of America’s boards and directors. The result? Leftward drift in virtually every major company. But now conservative shareholders, from ordinary investors to major conservative nonprofits, are stepping into the game — and their engagements are bearing major fruit. The latest proof? IBM.
IBM’s track record on corporate bias and activism is notorious. The company was a member of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), a group created by the World Federation of Advertisers that worked to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-daily-wire-addresses-the-ad-industry-following-the-fall-of-garm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">keep ad revenue away</a> from conservative news sites like the Daily Wire to free speech-centric platforms like X. And that’s before all the DEI concerns surfaced. After IBM CEO Arvind Krishna was caught on a <a href="https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1734374423124176944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1734374423124176944%7Ctwgr%5E42e55266e59ec08d85550be6ab044097866bd072%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdallasexpress.com%2Fbusiness-markets%2Fceo-of-tech-corp-ibm-enshrines-dei-hiring%2F">hot mic</a> discussing how the company uses quotas of ‘underrepresented’ minorities in determining their executive pay — in Krishna’s words, execs have “got to move both [race and gender] forward by a percentage point” in order to get a higher bonus. That means DEI. That means quotas. Following these snafus, the reputational, ethical, and (in the case of the Missouri AG who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/missouri-attorney-general-sues-tech-giant-ibm-alleging-discrimination-against-whites-asians-men" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sued</a> IBM) legal scrutiny was swift in coming.
IBM’s motto since its early years has been “THINK,” referring to the innovative spirit with which the company solves problems. Yet when it came to political bias, that motto was missing in action — and shareholders took notice. In January, the firm I work for, Bowyer Research, began <a href="https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-foundation-expands-efforts-hold-corporate-america-accountable-end-its-discriminatory" target="_blank" rel="noopener">work</a> with the Heritage Foundation to hold IBM accountable for the DEI quotas that Krishna described. The argument? Simple — use of non-meritocratic quotas based on race and gender aren’t just bad for reputation, but illegal on their face and bad for business. Shareholders, from major nonprofits to ordinary mom-and-pop investors, shouldn’t have their business returns impacted by IBM’s belief in identity politics.
As the shareholder engagement heated up on the internal front, pressure from <a href="https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5515346/the-ibm-red-hat-leaks-what-weve-learned-so-far" target="_blank" rel="noopener">journalists</a> and <a href="https://x.com/robbystarbuck/status/1910425361034383545" target="_blank" rel="noopener">influencers</a> like Robby Starbuck increased on the external front. That pressure built and built — and the release began earlier this month, when IBM announced the end of many of its DEI initiatives and related goals, including the elimination of its diversity council, the phaseout of its supplier diversity initiatives, and no longer participating in surveys put out by radical corporate <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-radical-intolerance-behind-woke-corporate-activism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">activist groups</a> like the Human Rights Campaign, which pressures companies to cover puberty blocker access for employees’ children in the name of “health care access.”
That would have been news enough — until several days ago, when IBM also <a href="https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-foundation-secures-commitment-viewpoint-neutrality-ibm-encourages-company" target="_blank" rel="noopener">agreed</a> to include viewpoint neutrality as part of its advertising policy in response to Heritage’s shareholder engagement. That means that biased, activist-driven, political censorship that ad cartels like GARM perpetuate is now explicitly banned under IBM corporate policy. IBM listened to its shareholders, its employees, and its customers — and the result is another company willing to make commitments to political neutrality. This is what happens when authentic shareholder advocacy, championing political neutrality, merges with external pressure to drop corporate bias: change happens, and happens in the form of concrete policy commitments, not just boilerplate PR statements. It’s a praiseworthy step.
But is the scrutiny over? Absolutely not. IBM needs to demonstrate that they’re committed to actually staying the course on being politically-neutral and quota-free. Outstanding questions remain. During our engagement on behalf of Heritage, the company <a href="https://www.sec.gov/files/corpfin/no-action/14a-8/heritageibm3325-14a8.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">notably claimed</a> to the SEC that they couldn’t give a definition of DEI as grounds to ignore shareholder concerns — so how did they go from not knowing what DEI is to getting rid of it? (You can probably guess how.) The company holds its annual meeting of shareholders today, and if they’re savvy will make a point of focusing their messaging on business, not activism.
Achieving the commitment to neutrality at IBM was the result of a myriad of groups, from shareholders like Heritage to <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/sec-sides-with-adf-denies-absurd-attempt-from-govt-contractor-ibm-to-hide-from-shareholders-on-dei-proposal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legal giants</a> like Alliance Defending Freedom to the courageous IBM employees willing to speak out about the bias behind the scenes. And it’s going to take all of those groups to be vigilant now — not paying attention to our boardrooms is what got us into the woke mess in the first place.
This is the next phase of rooting out bias and wokeness from corporate America — watching tirelessly to see whether companies that commit to ditching DEI are actually willing to put their messaging and money where their mouths are. Smart companies will be willing to commit to change. Foolish ones will hope to either avoid scrutiny altogether or reintroduce the same tired DEI policies under the guise of <a href="https://www.shrm.org/executive-network/insights/time-to-add-b-for-belonging-to-workplace-dei-strategy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">phrases</a> like “belonging.” It’s our job, as shareholders, as customers, and as Americans, to keep up the pressure for accountability with the leverage that we’ve been given. And above all, to make the case for what truly makes every company successful: the courage to resist activism and the fortitude to focus on business.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Traders On The Floor Of The New York Stock Exchange As Fed Chair Powell Holds New Conference

IBM Rolls Back DEI, Commits To Political Neutrality

Business

Diversity

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Dow Jones

GARM

Human Rights Campaign

Robby Starbuck

Stock Market

Wall Street

G.K. Chesterton <a href="https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/43811/stfrancisproblem.htm">wrote</a> of St. Francis of Assisi, “But after all, this man was a man and not half a dozen men. What seems inconsistency to you did not seem inconsistency to him.”
We should keep this same principle in mind today as we continue to pray for the repose of Pope Francis’s soul — and assess what we can learn from his legacy, both good and bad.
Much like the great saint whom he chose as his namesake and clearly intended to emulate, Pope Francis confounded caricature and was often misunderstood. In his life, and especially over the course of his pontificate, this quality often led to confusion for the faithful. No doubt, that pattern of confusion will be one hallmark of Francis’s papacy.
If we hope to learn from the life of Pope Francis, however, we must start by rejecting the mainstream media’s depiction of him as a “liberal” pope. Since his death, the New York Times has been filled with <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/opinion/pope-francis-gay-muddle.html'" target="_blank" rel="noopener">headlines</a> regarding his perspective on “LGBTQ people,” women deacons, or the Church’s teaching on birth control. But while these may be important issues to the opinion writers of the New York Times, they were not central to Pope Francis’s work.
A much better place to begin is, well, the beginning: those early years of the pontificate when an energetic and vigorous Pope Francis set out to reform the Vatican’s bureaucracy and put an emphasis on serving the poor and taking care of the sick.
<div id="attachment_913279" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-913279" class="size-large wp-image-913279" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-165118482-864x576.jpg" alt="VATICAN CITY, VATICAN - MARCH 31: Pope Francis embraces a boy prior to his first 'Urbi et Orbi' blessing from the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica during Easter Mass on March 31, 2013 in Vatican City, Vatican. Pope Francis delivered his message to the gathered faithful from the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica in St. Peter's Square after his first Holy week as Pontiff. (Photo by Franco Origlia/Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-165118482-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-165118482-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-165118482-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-165118482.jpg 1024w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Franco Origlia/Getty Images</div>
I will never forget when the Pope, in 2013, reached down and kissed a man suffering from neurofibromatosis, a rare disease which had left him disfigured with boils all over his head. And this was far from the only example. In his first year in the seat of St. Peter, Pope Francis made a point of <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/26889/pope-francis-to-offer-hope-by-washing-young-inmates-feet" target="_blank" rel="noopener">washing the feet</a> of 12 young people at a juvenile detention center, <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/27588/pope-francis-invites-homeless-to-dine-at-vatican" target="_blank" rel="noopener">inviting</a> 200 homeless people to dine at the Vatican, and living in a modest guest house rather than the Apostolic Palace.
With this radical humility, Pope Francis — the first Pope from the global South, where the Church continues to grow — reminded the decadent old continent that the cultural inheritance of Christendom is not in attending U.N. Conferences, but the corporal works of mercy: to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, shelter the homeless, visit the sick, visit the prisoners, bury the dead, and give alms to the poor.
Yet as much as Pope Francis loved the poor, he was not a humble Franciscan friar but a savvy Jesuit political operator whose initial attention to the corporal works of mercy — though never entirely lost — soon gave way to practical considerations about what would secure his power over the Church. And unfortunately, as he aged and became more entangled in the politics of the Vatican, Pope Francis became vulnerable to manipulation by his advisers as well as the media and indeed made many missteps that confused and divided his flock.
Examples abound. One week he would promote the blessing of “unions of persons of the same sex.” The next he would say that marriage will always be the union of one man and one woman. On one occasion, he declared that abortion was akin to “hiring a hitman,” while nevertheless appointing a pro-abortion economist to the Pontifical Academy for Life.
And because of his excessive reliance on the likes of Cardinal Blase Cupich — the radical progressive archbishop of Chicago whom he appropriately dubbed “the little woman” — Pope Francis was especially misguided in his approach to more conservative segments of the Church. He imposed serious restrictions on the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, which is growing rapidly in the United States. And despite his frequent denunciation of “clericalism,” he upended, for no apparent reason, the constitution of Opus Dei, a prelature distinguished for promoting the role of the laity in the Church’s mission.
In short, rather than working with the young, vibrant, and faithful segments of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis attacked them, choosing instead to champion progressive prelates and priests like Father James Martin, a Jesuit who pushes the Catholic church to abandon the traditional definition of marriage.
<div id="attachment_720181" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-720181" class="size-large wp-image-720181" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/04/GettyImages-619464578-864x576.jpg" alt="MALMO, SWEDEN - OCTOBER 31: Pope Francis gives a speech during the 'Together in Hope' event at Malmo Arena on October 31, 2016 in Malmo, Sweden. The Pope is on 2 days visit attending Catholic-Lutheran Commemoration in Lund and Malmo. (Photo by Michael Campanella/Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/04/GettyImages-619464578-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/04/GettyImages-619464578-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/04/GettyImages-619464578-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/04/GettyImages-619464578.jpg 1024w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Michael Campanella/Getty Images</div>
In spite of his own opposition to these groups, however, Pope Francis’s pontificate witnessed a surge of conservative young people converting to Catholicism, in America and around the world. This Easter, dioceses across the United States <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/news/easter-converts-2024-by-the-numbers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> 30%, 40%, 50%, and even 70% increases in the number of converts coming into the Church on Easter Vigil. Young people seeking stability and rootedness account for most of these conversions, and the same phenomenon is happening in <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/263349/france-sees-record-10384-adult-baptisms-in-2025-45-percent-increase-as-young-catholics-lead-revival" target="_blank" rel="noopener">France</a> and <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/263329/surge-in-adults-entering-church-in-england-this-easter-prompted-by-internet-tradition" target="_blank" rel="noopener">England</a>, where a <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/263239/catholics-now-outnumber-anglicans-among-gen-z-in-the-uk-study-suggestshttps:/www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/263239/catholics-now-outnumber-anglicans-among-gen-z-in-the-uk-study-suggests" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> shows that Gen Z Catholics now outnumber Anglicans two to one.
Amid this renewed interest in the Catholic Church, one of the great tragedies of Pope Francis’s papacy is that his misguided opposition to traditional religious communities and conservative political policies may have given many of these young Catholics the impression that a focus on serving the poor, feeding the hungry, and carrying out the other corporal works of mercy is somehow at odds with tradition and orthodoxy.
Let me be clear: this is not and never has been the case.
Christ tells his disciples in Matthew 25, “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” The corporal works of mercy are essential for all Christians, regardless of denomination or political party. And beyond informing our personal faith, they also must guide our efforts to reclaim our institutions and restore our country.
Moreover, Pope Francis’s liberal posturing on things like the environment may obscure his urgent message to modernity. Consider the late Pope’s 2015 “global warming” encyclical, Laudato Si. While it did include entire sections on “pollution and climate change” which the liberal media fawned over and promoted, its deeper argument — that we have failed to “safeguard the moral conditions for an authentic human ecology” — was profoundly conservative and largely ignored.
In Laudato Si, Pope Francis beautifully lays out how a “technocratic paradigm” has led us to accept “every advance in technology with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings.” And in pursuit of this “unlimited human power,” he argues, we have undermined the various conditions that help us flourish: destroyed God’s majestic creation, contracepted our God-given gift to create life, and dishonored God’s plan for men and women to be different.
This message — not misguided one-off statements on airplane interviews or liberal media headlines about hot button political issues — is what we should take away from Pope Francis’s papacy.
Modernity, despite all its advances, has robbed us of many of the most basic spiritual and moral resources we need to flourish and be truly happy. To recover them, we don’t need complex coding or advanced AI, but rather, as Pope Francis sought to remind us, simply to follow the lessons Jesus taught us about serving our fellow man.
Much like the early parts of his pontificate, Pope Francis’s final days reflected this message.
On Sunday, the Pope’s last day on Earth, he met with Vice President JD Vance, squashing their public spat. He used his Easter message to make an appeal for peace in the world&#8217;s most war-torn regions. And finally, he made one last loop through St. Peter’s square, stopping several times to bless babies brought up to him and wish all his “brothers and sisters” a “Happy Easter.”
May he rest in peace, mixed legacy and all — and may his brother cardinals be inspired to choose a successor capable of combining Pope Francis’s initial emphasis on the corporal works with a steadfast commitment to tradition, both of which were sorely lacking in the final years of the Holy Father’s life.
* * *
Kevin Roberts is the President of The Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu