The lone juror...

The numbers don’t add up because wethepeople are getting screwed.

A man dressed like Captain America who calls himself “Chrisp LikeTheChicken” believes me to be a hypocrite. He writes… "Mike - People don’t accuse you of hypocrisy because you don’t offer scholarships to four-year schools. You’re a hypocrite because you preach to be for the working-class while being funded by anti-union Koch bros. and regurgitate Republicans talking points while they’ve systematically dismantled the working class for the past 40+ years." Hello there, Chrisp. Nice outfit! As a rule, I don’t debate with grown men who dress like super-heroes and hide behind a pseudonym, but since you’ve been so candid with your criticism, and since I’m trapped on another plane for the next few hours, I’ll bite. First of all, let me assure you that many people do in fact, accuse me of hypocrisy because I have a four-year degree, but don't offer scholarships to four-year universities. I hear from these people every day, and they are very clear about the extent of their disappointment. Interestingly, many of those same people, also call me a hypocrite because I had a long and varied career in the entertainment industry before I launched mikeroweWORKS. They use the fact that I used to work as an actor, narrator, singer, and writer, to undermine any opinion I might have about education and workforce that they don't share. (He's just an actor! He sang in the Opera! What does he know?) These ad hominem attacks are very popular among those with no actual arguments to make, and easy to identify once you start looking for them. Consider those who tried to dismiss Ronald Reagan's ideas because he used to be an actor, or more recently, Markwayne Mullen's nomination to Secretary of Homeland Security, because he used to be a plumber. (I'm talking to you, Jimmy Kimmel.) To your second point, I've never preached or claimed to speak for the "working class," especially as you define them. Like many others who favor the term, you imply that the "working class" is limited to those workers who are represented by unions. I don't share that view. Although I've been critical of some union policies in the past, and argued that not all unions are created equal, I have no issue with organized labor. In fact, I've worked closely with dozens of them, and featured them prominently on Dirty Jobs, Somebody's Gotta Do It, Returning the Favor, and other shows over the years. Most tellingly, many of the 3,500 people my foundation has assisted are members of a trade union today, and I’m very happy for them. But, like the workforce overall, most of my scholarship recipients do not join unions, for all kinds of reasons. Fact is, Chrisp, the sum total of all workers in America who belong to a union – public and private sector combined - is barely 10%. Begging the obvious question...why would a guy who dresses up like Captain America want me to ignore 90% of the American workforce? And why for that matter, would a super-hero like you want me to reject financial assistance from companies, foundations, or individuals who employ so many hard working, highly skilled, well-compensated Americans? Does Captain America really want everyone to be in a union? If so, he should maybe consider changing his name. As for Republican talking points, again, I would invite you to prove the accusation. Just because I happen to say something that might coincide with a conservative position, doesn’t mean I’m “regurgitating” anyone else’s talking points. I’ve been a registered Independent my whole life, and I’ve tried to limit my public comments to issues pertaining to workforce and education. But if you really find my opinions inconsistent with your own, and feel compelled to tell six million people why you think I’m a hypocrite with no actual proof, you might want to at least consider the possibility that your disappointment has less to do with me, and more to do with the narrowness of your own worldview. Is that possible, Chrisp? Is it possible that you think I’m a hypocrite simply because I don’t share your priorities? I'll tell you what I think. (I know you didn't ask for my opinion, but I didn't ask for yours either, right?) I think your worldview is largely shaped by the eternal struggle between labor and management. I think you see one as the oppressor, and the other as the oppressed, and I think that perspective has made your world a very small place. Thus, my view of organized labor is just too nuanced for a super hero like you. Anything short of total fealty is a threat to your belief system. Because I don’t focus entirely on the 10% of the workforce that matters most to you, you see me as a threat. Because I might not vote the way you vote, you see me as a threat. Because I accept support from people you don't like, you see me as a threat. And because I have a large public platform, you see me as an even bigger threat. The unfortunate part, is that you don't seem to care at all about the 3,500 hundred people my foundation has assisted, most of whom are making a pretty great living outside a union. And because you’re not alone in your apathy, fear, and paranoia, you’ve whipped up the courage to hide behind a pseudonym, dress up like an imaginary Avenger, and criticize anyone who falls short of your own beliefs and expectations. With respect, "Mr. LikeTheChicken," I think your name says it all... Mike

I won’t tell anyone when I make it, but there will be signs.

I have a new respect for Kim Strassel of WSJ after reading this article from her revealing how the fake news covers the left's lawfare dishonestly, to make anything Trump and conservatives look bad and losing and anything the left does look legitimate and winning. "The state of legal reporting has reached peak national embarrassment." --- The Media's Lawfare Enabling The Supreme Court last week allowed Donald Trump’s ballroom construction to proceed, eliciting shock from the press corps. The court on Monday allowed the president’s mail-in voting order to continue, eliciting the same shock. This follows the shock after Trump administration wins on immigration enforcement, personnel firings, DEI and transgender orders, and dozens of other issues. How long is the public meant to treat the press’s pearl-clutching as genuine, rather than part of a campaign to undermine the administration and the credibility of the high court? The state of legal reporting has reached peak national embarrassment, a master class in fiction that rivals the reporting about Russia “collusion” and Joe Biden’s undiminished capacity. The media’s contribution to lawfare began in the earliest days of the first Trump term and has become only more brazen. The swings and misses are there for all to see, every day. Yet the formula is now so routine that nobody pushes back. It works like this: The administration takes an action that offends liberal sensibilities. Interest groups rush to litigate, sometimes with prepackaged lawsuits. The press quotes liberal law professors and the litigators themselves as to why the suits are worthy. A liberal judge issues an injunction, which is treated as further proof of a lawsuit’s merit. The stories omit any critical analysis of standing, jurisdiction, merits or precedent. When a higher court corrects the legal overreach, the media, rather than acknowledge it got it wrong, insists the judges are in the tank for Mr. Trump. Consider that ballroom case. When the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit last December to halt the project, the press corps pushed the litigation as a slam dunk. The stories all led with a quote from the suit, presenting as fact that “no president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever.” The pieces cataloged the laws the administration had supposedly violated, and the claim that any building required the “express authority of Congress.” Critics hailed the early August ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to halt the project as evidence of the trust’s legal firepower. Chief Justice John Roberts’s order last Friday staying that injunction wasn’t accompanied by an opinion and isn’t a ruling on the merits. But any reporter with a half-sharp pencil might have reported the potentially fatal problems with this suit. These were nimbly outlined by Judge Neomi Rao, who dissented from the D.C. Circuit’s injunction. She argues the trust has no standing to bring the suit: It wasn’t chartered to look after the White House, and its one member who occasionally walks past the complex and expects to dislike the new structure, can hardly claim a concrete “injury.” Judge Rao also makes a persuasive case on the merits, noting that the trust’s ultra vires claim (that the administration is acting in obvious excess of its powers) is “essentially a Hail Mary pass,” since at least one federal law authorizes the president to use funds for the “care, maintenance, repair, alteration” and “improvement” of the executive residence. The courts will decide the merits. But it’s ludicrous that the country’s ace legal reporters never provided the public even an inkling of these legal defects. It’s much more fun, as numerous stories about last week’s order did, to suggest slyly that the chief justice is doing a personal favor for the president. This is the cynical game—jerryrigged reporting to give life to lawfare and to set false expectations, the better to smear legal grown-ups. How unrelentingly were we told Mr. Trump’s 2017 “travel ban” would never stand? That there was no such thing as presidential immunity? That of course a president can’t fire independent-agency heads? That the administration’s firings, and DEI rules, and immigration actions all offended the law? How do we know this misreporting is intentional? The press corps is quite capable of providing good analysis about cases the president is actually poised to lose, as with his emergency tariffs and his executive order on birthright citizenship. It would be easy to call any right-leaning lawyer to get a read on a liberal suit’s flaws. It doesn’t happen. Don’t expect it to end, since the tactic continues to work for the left. The lawsuits—and the cheering coverage—keep the Democratic base motivated. The flood of litigation—and the hyped coverage—maintains the narrative that the president is daily exceeding legal boundaries. And the purposeful presentation of Supreme Court rulings as political or partisan—rather than straightforward legal correctives—gives ammunition to elected Democrats making the argument that they are justified in blowing up the judiciary to achieve partisan objectives. The real scandal is the press’s role. No one is surprised to see elected officials or political partisans engaged in partisan tactics, which now includes lawfare. But this particular ruse doesn’t work without the media’s cooperation—its willingness to suspend disbelief, omit key facts, and pretend higher courts are acting out of bounds. It’s doing terrible damage. Where are the professional media critics when you need them?

🤔… 😔

Yep.

The WNBA is what the entire country would be like if run by white liberal women.

Spain in 4 years:

Love it 😂😂😂😂😂

They took memory cards from us and then made us pay for storage.

Since our movement is trending right now, let me introduce myself: My name is Scott Presler. I’m an Eagle Scout & son of a retired Navy Captain. I moved to Pennsylvania in 2024 & launched an organization for the sole purpose of helping to re-elect President Trump. I’ve spent the last decade of my life registering tens of thousands of voters, electing Republicans to all levels of office, & helping to build up Republican structures from the county & state levels. I’ve traveled to over 40 states to grow the Republican Party. For the last 6 months, I’ve met with members of Congress to pass the SAVE America Act — which would require photo voter ID & proof of citizenship to vote. What I’m advocating for has overwhelming support from the American people. Yet I was not allowed entry to a dinner last night in Rapid City, South Dakota, because Senate Majority Leader Thune was present. When they go after me, they are really coming for you. I will not be bullied, pressured, intimidated & I won’t stop pushing for the country-saving SAVE America Act. Thank you for having my back — peacefully.

We didn’t need 60 votes to bring in 50 million illegals. Why do we need 60 votes to send them home?

If you support REMOVING JOHN THUNE… REPOST THIS!

This is the background to the Candace Owens photo in the Trump post below (yes, the Time cover is satire, but the photo is real). Back in 2016, Candace stopped paying rent on her $3,500-a-month luxury apartment in Stamford, Connecticut. She then sued her landlord, claiming she withheld rent because the apartment had black mould. Candace alleged that the mould made her ill - saying she suffered from: • Rashes • Coughing • Asthma • Cognitive impairment ("inability to think clearly") • Emotional distress Candace allegedly submitted the photo below as proof of eczema and related skin irritation from the mould exposure. Despite these claims, she continued living in the apartment without paying rent for about six months until it was repossessed by housing court in early 2017. The landlord counter-sued, arguing that Candace herself was responsible for the mould and for unpaid rent. The court sided with the landlord, finding that Candace failed to identify a required expert witness to support her mould-related injury allegations. On April 1, 2021, the Superior Court of Connecticut ordered Candace to pay the following damages to her landlord: • $17,719.90 in unpaid rent and related charges • $2,657.99 in attorney’s fees (capped under Connecticut law) • $205.00 in court costs for the counterclaim filing • $440.00 for trial de novo filing Total judgment: approximately $21,000. Makes you wonder if the cognitive impairment was permanent - would explain a lot.

💥HOLY SHIZZLES💥 Trump Posted this Video WATCH and I dare you tell me he ain’t sending everybody a message.. • JFK ASSASSINATION • EPSTEIN • Sun Tzu • Big Mike/Obama/Killary • George Soros • WEF & Klause Schwab ITS SO FUCKING ON!!! Drop a . If you’re ready to rock!!!!

Day 9 of 2026

What the heck is this? politico.com/news/2025/11/26…

When is the live stream of Ft. Knox?