Policy experts and advocates of boosting the birthrate have been meeting with White House aides, sometimes handing over written proposals on ways to help or convince women to have more babies,” reported The New York Times. Among the ideas circulating are a quota for the share of Fulbright scholarships awarded to parents and federal funding for programs that “educate women on their menstrual cycles” to “teach them when they’re able to conceive.”

Exactly which of these “pronatalist” policies President Donald Trump will embrace is not known, but he is a receptive audience, having pledged as a candidate to “support baby booms.” Similarly, in his first speech as Vice President, J.D. Vance told an anti-abortion rally, “I want more babies in the United States of America” (as if we didn’t already know that after Vance’s open disdain for “childless cat ladies” was uncovered in the 2024 campaign.)

The baby-making push is overtly sold not as a dystopian Handmaid’s Tale-esque plan to shunt women out of the workplace and back into the kitchen, even though, as a separate Times dispatch from a recent pronatalist conference noted, their movement has embraced “misogynists calling for a return to traditional gender roles.”

As the Congressional Budget Office detailed last year, in its 30-year population projections, “Over the next decade, immigration accounts for about 70 percent of the overall increase in the population, and the greater number of births than deaths accounts for the remaining 30 percent. After 2034, net immigration increasingly drives population growth, accounting for all population growth beginning in 2040.” Those projections would not hold if Trump’s mass deportation regime remained in place.

So, put me down as skeptical that Trump and his pro-natalist allies are serious about effective policymaking to increase America’s population. They are far more serious about dehumanizing and deporting immigrants and promoting sexist stereotypes about the role of women in society.

People are saying the D-Team wanted to shut down one of the major D candidates so as to consolidate the D vote.

In the California governor primary, everyone’s in it together. Like those presidential voting systems with two rounds, like France’s (1sr round with everybody from big-tent centrists, to Marxist-Leninist Revolution Party, to LaRouche Movement guy, to Animal Supremacism Party girl, and all in between; then a 2nd round with the top two only).

Some smart D-Team money (probably aligned with Israel) didn’t like the odds of the D-Team ending up like the Three Stooges, getting stuck trying to all go through an open door at the same time. If the D vote split enough ways, two R’s could be No.1 and No.2.

They had to axe somebody. They sent out the memo: “ATTN loyal D-Teamers. There shall be a joint political assassination, on such-and-such a date, against the sole Non-Jewish White heterosexual male in the field.” It happened remarkably swiftly, efficiently.

Porter has faced longstanding allegations stemming from a contentious divorce with her ex-husband, Matt Hoffman.

However, the situation remains disputed. Hoffman himself later stated to Fox News Digital that he did not recant the allegations, directly contradicting claims made by Porter’s campaign.

The legal battle between the two included competing restraining orders, police involvement, and a broader dispute over custody and conduct during their separation. Ultimately, the case unfolded in the context of a highly contentious divorce, with both parties accusing each other of abusive behavior.

Among the most widely cited claims were that Porter allegedly dumped a boiling pot of potatoes on him during an argument and shattered household items in a way that caused injury.

People make allegations against each other after messy divorces quite often, but if Hoffman, Porter’s ex-husband, was lying, it would not add up. Specific stories, like a boiling pot of potatoes, are much harder to fabricate and consistently maintain than general claims. At the same time, they would still be difficult to definitively prove.

So let me get this straight. If you become an intelligence asset for the Chinese government, you retain your office and your seat on the freaking intelligence committee. If you bang a hooker who is NOT a spy, your life is over. Do I have that right?