New York City Spent Approximately $81,000 PER PERSON on Services for the Homeless Last Year

 New York City has spent approximately $81,000 on services for each homeless individual in the past year, totaling $368 million. This staggering expenditure prompts critical questions about the effectiveness of the city's approach to homelessness.

1. Expenditure Overview: NYC’s Department of Homeless Services invested around $81,000 per homeless person in 2025, a significant increase from $28,000 per person in 2019. The overall spending on homeless services has more than tripled over six years.

2. Homeless Population Growth: Despite the high spending, the number of unsheltered homeless individuals has risen by 26%, from about 3,588 in the 2019 fiscal year to 4,505 in 2025.

3. Comparison to Household Income: The cost per homeless person is similar to the city’s median household income, which stands at $81,228 according to the 2024 US Census.

4. Critique of Current Strategies: Critics raise concerns about why homelessness persists despite substantial financial investments. Suggestions have been made that giving $81,000 directly to homeless individuals might be a more effective solution.

5. Systemic Issues: Observations from various commentators suggest that a substantial number of people profit from the ongoing homelessness crisis, indicating a lack of incentive to effectively resolve the issue.

6. Broader Commentary: The text references comments from comedian Adam Carolla regarding how attempts to provide effective solutions to homelessness can be rejected due to underlying social or political motivations.

The alarming rise in homelessness in New York City, coupled with the high spending on services, raises essential discussions on the effectiveness of the city's homelessness strategies and the need for a reevaluation of methods employed to tackle this persistent issue. 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/03/report-new-york-city-spent-approximately-81000-per/

Voter ID Has Massive Public Support: Why Is Congress Standing In The Way?

 There is significant public support for voter ID laws in the U. S., yet Congress has been slow to act on them. A majority of Americans believe photo identification should be required to vote, but some politicians resist this change.

• Public Support for Voter ID: Approximately 80% of U. S. adults, including significant numbers of Republicans and Democrats, support voter ID laws to protect election integrity. This widespread agreement has been consistent in various polls and surveys.

• SAVE Act Details: The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act requires voters to provide ID and proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, when registering to vote and when voting. This measure is intended to prevent unauthorized voting.

• Political Opposition: Despite the strong public backing, the bill has faced obstacles, primarily in the Senate, where some Republicans and all Democrats have expressed opposition. Critics claim that voter ID requirements may disenfranchise voters.

• Congressional Actions: The House of Representatives passed the SAVE Act in April 2025, and an expanded version followed in February 2026. However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has indicated that he will not support eliminating the filibuster, which may block the bill.

• Consequences of Inaction: If the SAVE Act is not passed, there is a risk of civil unrest as public frustration with Congress is high. Recent approval ratings for Congress are low, with many voters expressing dissatisfaction with their performance and direction.

The failure to advance the SAVE Act reflects a disconnect between political leaders and the electorate. While ensuring electoral integrity through voter ID laws enjoys broad popularity, resistance from some members of Congress suggests a deeper reluctance to change the existing political landscape, risking further alienation from the public. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/voter-id-has-massive-public-support-why-congress-standing-way

Media, 29 Federal Judges Freak Out Over Rude Words In Dissent Attacking Trans Child Abuse

 A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court regarding a women-only Korean spa has sparked controversy. Judge Lawrence VanDyke's dissent on this case focuses on the implications of allowing men into a space designed for women and children. This summary highlights the main points of the dissent and the backlash it received.

1. Case Overview:

• The Ninth Circuit forced a traditionally female-only spa, Olympus Spa, to admit men under the premise of "trans rights. "

• Judge VanDyke's dissent critiques this decision, emphasizing the discomfort and potential harm to female clients, some as young as thirteen.

2. VanDyke's Language:

• In his dissent, VanDyke used provocative language, starting with the phrase "This is a case about swinging dicks," to emphasize his stance against allowing men in the spa.

• He argues that while his language might be shocking, the reality of the decision poses a greater risk to vulnerable women.

3. Media and Judicial Reactions:

• VanDyke's comments were met with condemnation from many colleagues in the Ninth Circuit, who labeled the dissent as "vulgar barroom talk. "

• Critics argue that such language undermines public trust in the judiciary, with some judges asserting they are “better than this. "

4. Support for VanDyke:

• Despite the backlash, VanDyke's dissent has been seen by some as a necessary criticism of the decision forcing the spa’s admission policy.

• His dissent argues that the true "legal abomination" exists in the court's decision rather than his choice of words.

5. Judicial Credibility Issues:

• The article raises broader concerns about judicial credibility, suggesting that the outrage over VanDyke's language distracts from more significant issues regarding the court's authority and public trust.

• It mentions a history of controversial rulings by federal judges, indicating a perceived pattern of politically motivated decisions.

6. Political Implications:

• The dissent and subsequent reactions highlight divisions within the judicial system concerning gender identity and rights.

• VanDyke’s prior appointments and media portrayal suggest he may be considered for future Supreme Court nominations.

The dissent by Judge Lawrence VanDyke in the Ninth Circuit case involving Olympus Spa has ignited a complex dialogue surrounding women's rights in relation to transgender policies. While his use of crude language drew widespread criticism from his peers, the underlying issues of public trust in the judiciary and the implications of the court's decisions remain critical topics of discussion. This case exemplifies the tension in legal discourse around sensitive social issues, reflecting broader societal debates. 

https://thefederalist.com/2026/03/16/media-29-federal-judges-freak-out-over-rude-words-in-dissent-attacking-trans-child-abuse/

Our New Ungracious Immigrants

 The shift in American immigration attitudes from gratitude to resentment among some newcomers. It contrasts historical views of immigrants who embraced America with recent examples of those who express anti-American sentiments.

1. Historical Appreciation of Immigrants

• Traditionally, immigrants showed immense gratitude towards America, risking everything for a better life.

• Stories like Elia Kazan's "America, America" highlight the struggles immigrants faced and their subsequent loyalty to their new home.

• Modern examples include Dr. Max Nikias, who appreciated the opportunities America offered after immigrating from war-torn Cyprus.

2. Shifts in Attitude

• The text argues that recent immigrants are expressing resentment and disdain towards America, especially during times of conflict.

• Instances of anti-American protests among immigrant and international student populations, particularly after events such as the October 7, 2023, attack, showcase this shift.

• Many international students from the Middle East have engaged in demonstrations supporting terrorist groups.

3. Contradictions Among Immigrant Successes

• Some high-profile cases illustrate hypocrisy in anti-American sentiment among individuals who benefited from living in the U. S.

• Dr. Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani, whose father was a high-ranking Iranian official, became a professor in America, reflecting this contradiction.

4. Criminal Activity and Tensions

• The article highlights instances of criminal behavior among immigrants and naturalized citizens, linking some violent acts to foreign nationals and emphasizing public safety issues.

• High-profile cases of crimes committed by immigrants and the complexity surrounding issues of deportation further illustrate tensions.

5. Immigration Policies and Cultural Change

• Changes in immigration laws since the 1960s allowed for an influx of immigrants without the same level of scrutiny or expectation for assimilation as previous waves.

• This is seen as contributing to a diverse but fragmented society, where some newer immigrants view America negatively.

6. Political and Cultural Dynamics

• The text suggests that political ideologies, especially from the Left, have contributed to a culture where new immigrants are not held to traditional standards of appreciation for their host nation.

• Themes of victimhood are discussed, where those committing crimes are seen as victims of the system rather than responsible for their actions.

7. The Role of Media and Public Perception

• The portrayal of immigrant criminals in media has shifted, with some public figures advocating for more understanding and defending those who might express anti-American beliefs.

• Examples are provided of how various incidents have been downplayed in the interest of maintaining public sensitivity towards immigrants.

The changing nature of immigration in America reflects deeper cultural and political divides. Whereas past immigrants were often seen as appreciating their new environment, recent changes have led to notable instances of resentment and hostility. The text posits that this transformation is the result of various factors, including shifts in policy, cultural narratives, and the demographics of new arrivals, raising concerns about the future cohesion of American society. 

https://amgreatness.com/2026/03/17/our-new-ungracious-immigrants/

Trump Gets 200,000 Illegal Alien Truck Drivers Off the Road

 The Trump administration has introduced a new rule that will revoke commercial driver’s licenses from approximately 200,000 truck drivers who are undocumented immigrants, including those who may not speak English. This policy change aims to address concerns over safety following several tragic truck accidents.

1. Policy Change: The new rule will take effect on March 20, 2026, ending licenses for immigrant truck drivers who are not in lawful immigration status, specifically excluding asylum seekers and DACA recipients.

2. Safety Concerns: The rule responds to concerns about accidents caused by truck drivers who may struggle with fundamental communication due to language barriers. Instances of accidents involving drivers who cannot read English have heightened these safety worries.

3. Accident References:

• A recent crash involved a driver facing felony charges, assisted by interpreters in court.

• A past incident highlighted a driver causing a severe pileup due to excessive speed while unable to communicate effectively with law enforcement.

4. Media Response: The media has criticized the administration for the potential loss of truck drivers but has faced pushback regarding the implications of allowing drivers unable to read English behind the wheel.

5. Actual Numbers: While reports vary, the anticipated reduction in truckers affected by the rule will be around 194,000, less than the media reports of 200,000.

The Trump administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigrant truck drivers stems from safety concerns related to past accidents. The effects of this policy will significantly impact those currently holding commercial driver’s licenses without lawful immigration status, as part of a broader discussion about road safety and immigration policies.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/trump-gets-200000-illegal-alien-truck-drivers-off-the-road/

Unconcerned, Unconscionable, but Sadly Not Unexpected

 J. T. Young critiques the Democratic Party's actions regarding national security and illegal immigration amid rising threats from terrorism, particularly related to Iran. It argues that Democrats prioritize illegal immigrants' rights over the safety of American citizens, especially during wartime.

• Democrats have shut down portions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make it harder to deport illegal immigrants. This move has not changed even after military confrontations with Iran escalated.

• The DHS's shutdown is problematic because it is responsible for American safety, especially during military conflicts with terrorist states like Iran.

• The piece highlights that for years, the Democratic administration has facilitated an open southern U. S. border, allowing potentially dangerous individuals to enter the country unchecked.

• Reports indicate that among four million immigrants who entered illegally, at least 99 were on terrorism watchlists. This raises urgent concerns about potential terrorist activities.

• The article recounts specific violent incidents linked to terrorism, including shootings and bomb plots in U. S. cities (Austin, New York City, and Virginia), emphasizing that such acts reflect the real and growing threats to Americans.

• There is a concern that warnings from the FBI about potential attacks orchestrated by Iranian operatives are being overlooked due to the Democrats' political stance.

• The article criticizes the Democrats for continuing to prioritize political agendas over the safety of the general public, particularly as attacks related to Islamic extremism are rising.

• Young questions how many more threats or attacks must occur before there is a change in the current political decisions impacting national security.

The author asserts that the Democrats' refusal to fully restore DHS operations during a time of war is not only problematic but dangerous. The article conveys that prioritizing the rights of illegal immigrants over national safety is a grave political choice, especially in the face of real and escalating threats from terrorism. The ongoing struggle between political motives and the need for security raises important questions about governance during critical times. 

https://spectator.org/unconcerned-unconscionable-but-sadly-not-unexpected/

New energy policies in California threatening America’s national security

 California's strict regulations and high taxes are influencing companies, including notable ones like Tesla and Oracle, to relocate to states with better business conditions. These changes have significant implications for the state's refining capacity and energy security.

• Corporate Exodus: Major companies are relocating from California due to high regulatory burdens and taxes, impacting the state’s economy.

• Refinery Closures: Key refinery closures, such as Phillips 66’s and Valero’s, threaten approximately 20% of California’s gasoline supply, raising concerns about fuel shortages and increasing prices.

• Energy Island: California lacks crude oil pipelines over the Sierra Mountains, making it isolated from the mainland's oil supply and reliant on in-state refineries for transportation fuel.

• Regulatory Threats: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is proposing new regulations that could harm local businesses, increase living costs, and put national security at risk due to reduced refinery operations.

• Impact on National Security: Dependence on imported fuels could jeopardize military readiness and local energy resilience, risking higher costs and lower availability during emergencies.

• Global Shifts: Other regions, particularly in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, are advancing new refinery projects to meet global fuel demands, which may lead to California being even more reliant on foreign imports.

California's current energy policies and regulations risk dismantling its refining capacity, threatening the state's economy and national security. The potential loss of the refining industry signals a troubling future for energy supply and affordability in the state, necessitating urgent policy reevaluation. 

https://www.americaoutloud.news/new-energy-policies-in-california-threatening-americas-national-security/