Shutdown Politics: Congress Gets Paid — Workers Get Nothing

 

During the last government shutdown, millions of federal workers went without pay while one group in Washington continued collecting theirs without interruption: members of Congress. The very people responsible for the breakdown in governance were the only ones insulated from the consequences of their own inaction.

Now with another shutdown looming as the temporary funding patch nears expiration early next year, it’s clear we are heading toward the same ritual of dysfunction — and once again, the political class will glide through untouched.

During the last shutdown, a few lawmakers suggested that Congress should not receive pay during a closure. It was a rare moment of self-awareness, and for an instant it looked as though leaders might acknowledge the unfairness of being paid while federal workers were not.

But the idea evaporated almost immediately. Members retreated to a familiar constitutional argument: congressional pay cannot be altered mid-term. While technically true, it was also a convenient excuse. Nothing prevented lawmakers from voluntarily refusing pay, delaying the cashing of their checks, or instructing the Treasury to withhold salary until employees received theirs. They simply chose not to take any of those steps.

What Congress Could Have Done — But Didn’t

Even under existing laws, members of Congress had clear, simple ways to demonstrate solidarity with the working class. They could have paused their own pay, deferred it, or donated it. They could have taken any visible step to show that if federal employees were going without, elected officials would share the burden.

Instead, Congress carried on with uninterrupted compensation while millions of workers — people they supervise and rely on — were left to navigate missed rent payments, mounting bills, and weeks of uncertainty. It was another reminder that Washington often operates like a separate, Ruling class, shielded from the hardship it imposes on others.

A Missed Opportunity to Lead

What makes this even more frustrating is how politically shortsighted it was. If a major party had stood together and announced that its members would forgo pay during the shutdown, it would have won an immediate surge of public goodwill. Americans are desperate for signs of fairness and shared sacrifice. A simple gesture of integrity could have delivered exactly that.

But no one took the opportunity. Instead, both parties protected the status quo, reinforcing the perception that Congress is out of touch with the people it serves.

A Reform That Should Be Automatic

The solution is straightforward: no member of Congress should receive pay during a government shutdown. The Constitution may complicate how such a rule is formalized, but nothing stops lawmakers from adopting the principle voluntarily. If they can shut down the government, they should feel the consequences alongside every other federal worker.

You’re not a leader if you don’t lead

Shutdowns are failures of leadership. When leaders fail, they should not be shielded from the effects of those failures. If Congress wants to restore even a thread of trust, it can begin by refusing to pay itself when the government stops paying everyone else.

Until that happens, each shutdown will continue to expose the same uncomfortable truth: in Washington, those who create the crisis remain the only ones guaranteed a paycheck. One word describes it: "Shameful". Stay tuned…

 

A Modern, Cost-Neutral Approach to the Immigration Problem

 

Stop Paying Top Dollar to Deport the Workers We Need

America faces a worsening shortage of unskilled labor in the very industries that keep the country functioning: agriculture, construction, food processing, hospitality, and elder care. Yet the United States continues to spend between $25,000 and $40,000 per person to locate, apprehend, detain, process, feed, house, and ultimately remove many of the same workers filling those jobs. The result is predictable: fewer available workers, higher consumer prices, and deeper strain on essential services.

This is not an immigration strategy. It is an extraordinarily expensive way to make a labor shortage worse.

A modern, cost-neutral solution exists. Instead of spending taxpayer dollars on a removal process that takes months and solves nothing, the government can redirect those same resources to issue swift, lawful work authorization to eligible individuals—people who pass identity and criminal checks and have verified employers ready to hire them in shortage sectors. No new bureaucracy. No added spending. Just a smarter outcome from the process we already run.

If federal agencies have the capacity to fingerprint, background-check, transport, house, and deport someone, they can just as easily fingerprint, background-check, verify an employer, and authorize a person for legal employment—at a fraction of the cost and in far less time.

The reform is simple:

First, create a field-issued, one-year renewable work card. Agents already conduct identity checks, biometric scans, and background screenings. Adding verified employment to that list and issuing a work authorization immediately is both logical and efficient. This avoids long detentions, crowded court dockets, and months-long processing delays.

Second, pair work authorization with real accountability. Require E-Verify, withhold payroll taxes, and enforce prevailing wages. Make the authorization portable so workers are not trapped by exploitative employers. Employers who break the rules lose program access and face penalties. This protects both American workers and authorized migrants from wage abuse and under-the-table employment.

Third, reserve deportation resources for the targets that matter: criminals, fraudsters, individuals with disqualifying offenses, and those who lack legitimate job matches. That is where enforcement dollars produce real public-safety benefit. Removing people who present no threat but fill vital workforce gaps is wasteful and counterproductive.

Critics warn that any legal work channel becomes a “magnet.” But the magnet already exists—it is the jobs themselves. Pretending otherwise does nothing to reduce illegal crossings; it merely pushes workers further into the underground economy, where neither taxes nor labor standards apply. A legal, rapid, enforceable work process channels that demand into a system built on transparency and rule of law.

Others argue that such a policy “rewards breaking the law.” Yet for decades the United States has sent mixed and inconsistent signals through varying enforcement priorities, sanctuary declarations, and political rhetoric. A clear system—identity verified, background cleared, employer validated, taxes withheld, and wages regulated—restores credibility. Those who qualify work legally. Those who do not, do not. That is the core of any functional rule-of-law system.

Congress can enact this tomorrow: a Work Authorization at Encounter card valid for 12 months, renewable, targeted to shortage sectors, tied to W‑2 jobs, subject to strict vetting and employer oversight, and reviewed after two years to measure cost, compliance, and labor-market impact.

It will not be perfect. No system is. But compared to paying $25,000–$40,000 per person to remove workers we desperately need, it is a far better investment. It transforms unauthorized workers into tax-paying contributors with traceable identities. It frees federal agents to focus on genuine threats. And it brings competence to a system long defined by inefficiency and political theater.

If the job exists and the person qualifies, authorize the work and move forward. That’s not generosity. That’s modern, cost-neutral competence.

Shutdowns Reward the ‘Non-Essential’ and Punish the Essential

 When Washington “shuts down,” the script is depressingly familiar. Agencies scramble, headlines blare, and millions of Americans wonder what exactly stops—and what doesn’t. What almost never gets said out loud is the obvious: everyone knows back pay will be restored when it’s over. Since 2019, retroactive pay is guaranteed by law. Which means a shutdown functions less like a serious budget tool and more like a perverse paid-leave program for some, while others carry the whole load with no pay until the logjam breaks.

The federal government divides workers into two buckets during a lapse in funding. The public hears “essential” and “non-essential,” but the official terms are “excepted” (must work) and “non-excepted” (furloughed). Here’s the kicker: both groups eventually get paid for the same period, but only one group is required to show up under threat of discipline—the people deemed most critical to safety and continuity. In practice, that means TSA officers, Border Patrol agents, air-traffic controllers, federal prison staff, certain medical and lab personnel, and a long list of other “excepted” workers still report every day—with zero pay until a funding bill passes. Meanwhile, many “non-excepted” employees stay home and later receive full back pay for the time off.

Explain to me how that makes sense...

We’ve created a system that rewards the employees judged least critical to immediate operations with a paid furlough, while penalizing the ones we cannot do without. That’s upside-down. In any modern organization, if someone is indispensable in a crisis, you compensate them for that burden—overtime, hazard pay, bonuses—something. At minimum you don’t ask them to float the government an interest-free loan on their own backs while others wait at home for the same paycheck to arrive later.

Defenders will say the terms “essential” and “non-essential” are misunderstood, that “non-excepted” doesn’t mean unimportant. Fine. But try telling an air-traffic controller working ten straight days without a paycheck that there’s no real difference. Or a Border Patrol agent juggling a mortgage while Congress argues. The effect is what matters, and the effect is unequal treatment.

Worse, the policy encourages exactly the wrong incentives. If everyone knows back pay is guaranteed, a shutdown becomes political theater with real human collateral. The broader economy takes a hit, contractors frequently don’t get made whole, and public trust erodes. But inside government, the message is clearer than any memo: the people you rely on most will carry the stress and cash-flow pain; everyone else gets a break—then a check.

There’s a simple fairness principle we’ve forgotten: If any are required to work, all should work. Either keep the whole operation running under a continuing resolution until Congress finishes its job, or shut it down evenly—no selective burdening of “excepted” employees. If Congress wants to maintain the back-pay guarantee (a humane choice), pair it with one of these fixes:

1. Automatic Continuing Resolution (ACR). If appropriations lapse, funding automatically continues at last year’s level for a defined period. No shutdowns; no weaponizing paychecks.

2. Parity Rule. If “excepted” staff must work, then “non-excepted” staff perform available duties (on-site or telework) rather than furloughing. If work truly isn’t available, redeploy temporarily to backlogs and public-facing service queues.

3. Hardship & Hazard Compensation. Mandate immediate partial pay or no-interest advances for “excepted” workers; add a small statutory premium (e.g., 5–10%) for hours worked during a lapse to acknowledge the burden.

4. Shared Accountability. Put elected officials and political appointees on the same cash-flow schedule as “excepted” workers. If controllers and agents wait, so do cabinet officers and Members. Watch how fast deadlines get met.

The private sector has a name for focusing resources on people who deliver the bulk of the value: management. Government should try it. Until then, we’re running a system where the most critical people get the worst deal during a shutdown. That’s not serious budgeting—it’s a moral and managerial failure dressed up as fiscal toughness.

If we mean what we say about service, safety, and respect for work, then fix the policy. 

Either nobody works—or everybody does.

Why Widening Freeways Is Making Traffic and Climate Worse — Not Better

Across America, traffic is brutal. Commutes are long, roads are clogged, and frustration is sky-high. So what’s the typical response? Build more lanes. Add more freeway capacity. Spend billions trying to “relieve congestion.”

But here’s the truth: It doesn’t work. It never has. And it’s making things worse — for our cities, our climate, and our future.

More Lanes = More Cars = More Emissions

This idea might seem counterintuitive, but it’s backed by decades of data. When you add lanes to a freeway, you don’t fix traffic — you invite more of it. This is called induced demand: when driving becomes temporarily easier, more people start doing it. Trips they once avoided now seem convenient. People move farther out. Sprawl spreads.

Look at Los Angeles, where thousands of people commute two hours each way from places like Riverside just to find affordable housing. Widening the 405 didn’t help. Adding capacity only encouraged more long-distance driving and more time behind the wheel.

The Carbon Cost Nobody Talks About

More cars on the road means more CO2 — even as electric vehicles grow. But there’s another layer most people forget: building freeways is a carbon-intensive process. It involves cement, asphalt, diesel-fueled machinery, and the destruction of natural land.

And once new roads are built, they fuel sprawling development — which leads to even more driving. It’s a vicious cycle.

Example? The Katy Freeway in Houston was expanded to a staggering 26 lanes. The result? Longer commute times and worse congestion than before. Emissions skyrocketed.

What If We Did the Opposite?

Instead of throwing more asphalt at the problem, what if we made the bold move to stop expanding — or even reduce — freeway capacity?

Here’s what would happen:
- Driving becomes less convenient — and that’s a good thing.
- Urban density improves, so people live closer to jobs.
- Mass transit becomes more viable and competitive.
- Total vehicle miles drop, cutting carbon at the source.

This isn’t a fantasy. Paris is reclaiming roads from cars and turning them into greenways. San Francisco tore down parts of its freeway system — and saw traffic decrease.

It’s Time for LA to Lead

Los Angeles has a chance to show the country what smart urban planning looks like. We don’t need more lanes on the 405. We need housing near jobs. We need walkable neighborhoods. We need serious investment in public transit, not endless expansions of freeways that only lock us deeper into car dependence.

Widening roads is easy. It’s also lazy. The hard — and smarter — path is to reimagine how we move and where we live.

Let’s stop building our way into more traffic and more emissions. Let’s start planning a city that actually works.

Sources

1.      1. UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies (Duranton & Turner). ‘The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion.’

2.      2. Texas A&M Transportation Institute: ‘2019 Urban Mobility Report.’

3.      3. NRDC: ‘The Problem with Widening Highways’ (https://www.nrdc.org/stories/problem-widening-highways)

4.      4. Vox: ‘Why building more highways doesn’t fix traffic’ (https://www.vox.com/2014/10/28/7076365/traffic-congestion-induced-demand)

5.      5. Streetsblog USA: ‘Katy Freeway Expansion Made Traffic Worse’ (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/08/27/houstons-2-8-billion-freeway-widening-project-made-traffic-worse/)

6.      6. Bloomberg: ‘Paris Plans to Remove Half of Its Parking Spots’ (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-15/paris-to-remove-70-000-parking-spaces-to-reduce-car-use)

7.      7. Congress for the New Urbanism: ‘Freeways Without Futures’ report.

“Men Are the Solution to Men” in Women’s Sports

 What do Rory McIlroy, Scottie Scheffler, Brooks Koepka, Tony Finau, and Tommy Fleetwood all have in common? The easy answer is that they are all professional golfers with global reputations. But the important commonality is that all five are sponsored by Nike—the world’s largest sports apparel company, with over $51 billion in annual sales. Collectively, these five golfers receive at least $50 million in direct and indirect Nike sponsorships. Nearly every Sunday, audiences around the world tune in to watch them march down the fairways proudly wearing Nike gear emblazoned with the swoosh logo.

What does this mean, and why is it important?

Nike’s corporate stance couldn’t be clearer: “All bodies, all journeys” belong in any division they choose. The company has spent millions on Pride-branded gear and grants, publishes coaching guides that begin with “Prioritize safe spaces for trans and non-binary youth,” and partners with advocacy groups that push governing bodies to open women’s categories to biological males. In short, Nike isn’t a bystander—it is an active, well-funded promoter of the very policies that place men in women’s sports. Nike believes that men should be allowed to compete in women’s sports—no hesitation, no questions asked. “Inclusive to all journeys.”

Now imagine it’s Masters Sunday. Out on the course strut these five golfers—each with gray duct tape covering their Nike swooshes. Let that image sink in. What would be the global reaction? It doesn’t take much imagination to see that it would instantly become the biggest news/sports story of the day, the week, and possibly the year. Scottie Scheffler boldly displaying his lack of support for his global sponsor. And why would he do such a thing? Because, in that moment, he’s stating to the world that money is not as important as principle. He saying that I will not prostitute myself for a company that supports and encourages and finances the end of women's sports. He's declaring to the world that men do not belong in women’s sports. That’s what he believes—and he’s putting his money squarely where his mouth is.

In one brief instant, the world’s most recognized golfers would be declaring:
“We stand for women—for women’s sports. We will not let men compete against women, and we won’t promote a company that does.”

That one moment would detonate the long-dodged debate of male participation in female divisions across every media feed on Earth. Five megastars would have just turned their backs on more than $50 million in annual Nike money—and challenged a corporation clearing $50 billion a year. The sports world would never sound the same.

Can they afford to take a stand?

Each of these golfers is already set for life. McIlroy’s net worth hovers around a quarter-billion dollars; Scheffler’s career earnings are racing toward nine figures; Koepka’s LIV signing bonus alone could bankroll most retirements; Finau and Fleetwood are multi-millionaires many times over. Their children won’t skip college if an endorsement check doesn’t clear.

But money is only half the leverage. Nike is the loudest voice in global sport, and golf is played in over 150 countries. When the biggest brand meets a truly worldwide game, a single act of defiance reverberates from Seoul to São Paulo. No lawsuit, petition, or hashtag can match the moral thunder of five household names refusing to advertise a message that erases women’s categories.

Fathers, not bystanders

For two of the five, the stakes are personal. Rory’s daughter, Poppy, will be trying out for school teams in less than a decade. Tony Finau’s three young girls are close behind. Scheffler, Koepka, and Fleetwood may welcome daughters in the coming years. When those kids ask what their fathers did to keep girls’ sports fair, a taped-over swoosh will speak louder than any bank balance. And imagine companies like Adidas or Under Armour rushing to fill the sponsorship void left by Nike’s exit. There’s a case to be made that these golfers could even grow their sponsor base.

Legacy versus Greed

A strip of duct tape is hardly a martyr’s cross—but principle rarely comes free. Sponsors who hide now will rush forward when the cultural pendulum swings back toward competitive sanity, eager to back athletes who showed they value fairness over greed. History remembers courage; it forgets lost income. Imagine 50 years from now, when these five pro golfers look back. What do they see? What does the world remember them for?

To these five I say: Use your stature to do something much bigger than golf.
Be men. Do what’s right. And do it now.

What can the rest of us do?

Refuse to buy Nike until the company rewrites its playbook. If five golfers provide the first punch, consumers can deliver the second. Every lost sale sends a message to corporate strategists that destroying women’s sports in the name of “inclusion” is not just unethical—it’s bad business. When revenue slips, missions change. Put your dollars elsewhere until the swoosh stands for competitive integrity again.

Thought Experiment: What If One Athlete Took a Stand?

Imagine it’s the final day of the U.S. Open. Scottie Scheffler, the number one golfer in the world, walks onto the course in contention for the title. Over 100 million viewers are watching across the globe.

But something is different.

Every Nike swoosh on his apparel—hat, shirt, shoes, and bag—is covered with silver duct tape. The cameras catch it instantly. The broadcast team stumbles to explain. Social media erupts.

After the round, reporters press him for answers.

Scheffler steps to the microphone and calmly says:

“I do not condone or support men playing in women’s sports. I do not support businesses that promote or profit from that ideology. Nike is the most vocal apparel company backing this movement. Until that changes, I will no longer wear the swoosh or accept their sponsorship. I stand with women.”

One act of bold defiance. One athlete willing to put principle above paycheck. What would happen?

The media would explode. Some would vilify him, others would rally behind him. But one thing is certain: the conversation would change overnight. And women—real women—would finally have a champion on the biggest stage in sports.

If DOGE Is Serious, Congress Should Be Too

In recent months, Elon Musk has been making waves with cost-cutting initiatives related to DOGE, showing a level of financial discipline rarely seen in government.

If the process and premise of DOGE are to be taken seriously, then our elected officials should follow suit.

For decades, the U.S. Congress has talked about fiscal responsibility and cost-cutting, yet when it comes to personal sacrifice and cost impacts that would apply to them, they remain conspicuously absent from the conversation. Even when the government shuts down due to political gridlock, members of Congress and their staff still receive their paychecks, while everyday citizens do not get the additional "paid" vacation days that federal employees always receive.

It’s time for Congress to put their money where their mouths are. If they claim to be serious about financial responsibility, they should take immediate steps to cut their own costs, just as private sector leaders like Musk are doing with DOGE. While the Democrats may not voluntarily prioritize cost-cutting, this is precisely why Republicans must rise up and demonstrate true fiscal responsibility.

Where Congress Can Cut Costs:

1. Reduce Congressional Salaries: If the government is in financial distress and must rein in costs, lawmakers should share the burden instead of shielding themselves from its effects.

2. Eliminate Perks and Benefits: Lavish travel budgets, lifetime pensions, and other excessive benefits should be scaled back or eliminated.

3. Reduce Bloated Staffs: Streamlining congressional offices can cut unnecessary expenditures while maintaining efficiency. The average staff size for the 435 members of Congress is approximately 15 employees per congressman, with at least two offices. Senators, on average, have 41 employees and several offices, depending on the number and size of their constituency. How much of this is truly necessary? This must be evaluated and reduced where possible.

4. Hold Congress Accountable During Shutdowns: If the government shuts down, congressional pay should be suspended and not reimbursed after a budget agreement is reached. Congress must be held accountable and feel the consequences of their inability to perform their jobs.

Fiscal discipline should not be a talking point used for political posturing—it should be a standard that applies to everyone, including those in power. If DOGE is to be taken seriously as a financial experiment in efficiency, then the U.S. government should take note and finally take cost-cutting seriously themselves.

The American people deserve leaders who lead by example. It’s time for Congress to step up and show that they are as serious about leadership and fiscal responsibility as they claim to be.

Junk Mail: Environmental and Societal Craziness

 Are we crazy?

Have you ever asked yourself the following questions and wondered, are you the only one that notices?

·       Does receiving junk mail delivered to your mailbox every day of your life seem wasteful?

·       Have you been programmed to the task of taking junk mail directly from your mailbox to the trash or recycle bin?

·       Does it seem silly that, in a digital and environmentally aware age, we still employ outdated, inefficient, and environmentally irresponsible methods of communication?

If you’ve answered yes to any of these questions, you’re not alone. The practice of producing and delivering junk mail (bulk mail) is a colossal waste of resources. Trees, vital for converting and storing carbon dioxide, are sacrificed to produce paper that mostly ends up discarded without a second glance. The process consumes significant energy and fuel for production and transportation, only to result in a one-way trip to the landfill or recycling bin.

What’s worse, society has been conditioned to accept this wasteful routine. The daily act of sorting through junk mail and discarding it has become so ingrained in our lives that we hardly question its absurdity. This mindless cycle wastes time, reinforces inefficiency, and contributes to environmental harm.

In today’s digital age, where instant and sustainable communication options exist, the continuation of paper junk mail is both outdated and negligent. As we face increasing environmental challenges and strive for greater awareness, it’s imperative to question and change practices that no longer serve us or the planet. The time to replace junk mail with modern, eco-friendly alternatives is long overdue…

Or will we continue the craziness of the times?

Mitch McConnell: A story of betrayal

 Mitch McConnell, once regarded as a pillar of Republican leadership, has a long and storied career in the U.S. Senate. As Majority Leader, he was known for his ability to corral Republican votes, even on initiatives that faced significant resistance within the party. Yet, in what can only be described as a stunning act of disloyalty, yesterday, McConnell voted against Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense, a move that has left more than a few conservatives questioning his allegiance to the Republican Party.

This vote represents not just a disagreement over a nominee but a deeper betrayal of the principles and unity that are needed to bind the Republican Party together. McConnell’s betrayal is reminiscent of actions by other Republican figures who in the past, and at critical moments, turned their backs on the party’s broader mission.

Mitch McConnell’s Career: The Strongman of the Senate

Throughout his career, McConnell built a reputation as a master tactician, someone who understood the importance of party unity. Time and again, he has used his influence to push through Republican initiatives, even when they faced opposition within the ranks. Whether it was tax reform or judicial nominations, McConnell knew how to rally Republicans to achieve the party’s objectives.

His ability to persuade—and sometimes strong-arm—Republican senators to vote for contentious measures was a hallmark of his leadership. It’s precisely this history that makes his vote against Hegseth so shocking. If anyone understands the stakes of party loyalty, it’s McConnell.

The Vote Against Pete Hegseth

Pete Hegseth, a decorated veteran and prominent conservative voice, represented an ideal choice for Secretary of Defense. His nomination signaled a commitment to a strong, America-first defense policy that aligns with the Republican Party’s values. Yet McConnell, a man who has spent decades defending conservative ideals, chose to oppose Hegseth’s nomination.

What makes this betrayal particularly egregious is McConnell’s track record. He has spent years convincing Republican senators to support initiatives they might not personally agree with, emphasizing the importance of party unity. For him to suddenly abandon that principle when it mattered most raises serious questions about his motivations.

Parallels to Other Betrayals

McConnell’s actions are not without precedent. Other prominent Republicans have similarly betrayed the party at critical moments. John McCain’s infamous vote against repealing the Affordable Care Act is still fresh in the minds of many conservatives. And it was done right in McConnell’s face. Likewise, George Bush’s refusal to fully support Donald Trump in 2016 weakened the party’s cohesion during a pivotal election. Paul Ryans inability to focus on the big picture cost the party their majority in 2018.

These instances share a common thread: career politicians who have benefited from the Republican Party’s support turning their backs, for their own self-righteous purposes, when unity was most needed. McConnell, like McCain, Ryan and Bush before him, seems to have placed personal or political considerations above the party’s interests.

The Republican Trough

For decades, politicians like McConnell have thrived within the Republican Party. They’ve risen through the ranks, benefited from the party’s resources, and built their careers on conservative principles. And in the process of feeding at the Republican trough, they have enriched themselves to a level never imagined in public service. That success comes with a responsibility to remain loyal to the party and its objectives.

It’s not about blind allegiance but about understanding that the party’s strength lies in its unity. By voting against Hegseth, McConnell has undermined that unity and, in doing so, betrayed the very institution that enabled his success while at the same time threatened the ability of the party to achieve its conservative mission.

McConnell’s Legacy: A Traitor to Republican Unity

Mitch McConnell’s vote against Hegseth will go down as a dark mark on his legacy. For a man who built his career on the importance of party loyalty, this act of defiance is both shocking and disappointing. It’s a betrayal not just of Hegseth but of the Republican Party and its values.

In the years to come, McConnell’s decision will be remembered as a moment when he turned his back on the party that supported him for decades. His actions have left conservatives questioning his commitment to the cause and have tarnished his reputation as a Republican leader.

Conclusion: The Cost of Disloyalty

It’s time to demand that our representatives prioritize the party’s values and objectives over personal interests and take a chapter from the Democrats…stand united even if you don’t like it...the future of the Republican Party depends on it.