OUR SOCIAL SECURITY

I’m in agreement From Fox News. I wonder how loud it’ll get if Trump could pull this off. It will be interesting.
President Trump is asking everyone to share this, in three days, most people in the United States will have seen the message. This is an idea that should be passed around, regardless of political party.
The TRUMP Rules:

1. Tenure / No Pension. 

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office. And no more perks go with them.

2. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
'

3. Congress must purchase their own retirement plan, just as ALL Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise at the same rate as the COLA for monthly Social Security recipients minus 1% if having a budget balance deficit.

5. Congress loses their current care system and participates in the same health care system (Medicare) as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people (i.e. NO MORE INSIDER TRADING!!!).

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women. Congress made all these contracts by and for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor and privilege, NOT a career.

The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work … not get all kinds of freebies. Term limits of 2 terms and treat them like a regular citizen!

You will need to copy and paste.

I AGREE SO IM SHARING!
Note:
This should be done immediately!!!

THIS PRETTY MUCH SUMS IT UP

 The Federalist Papers   August 30, 2026

President Trump signed an executive order on Aug. 27 directing federal agencies to rename Lake Ontario “Lake America” in U.S. government usage.

Canada does not have to recognize the change, and frankly, I am not a huge fan of it either. I think renaming landmarks to irritate the other side is mostly political theater when there are far bigger problems to solve.
But here is where the outrage from the Left starts to get a little hard to take seriously. For years, the political and cultural Left has enthusiastically participated in renaming, rebranding and reclassifying anything it decides no longer fits the approved narrative.

 
Columbus Day becomes Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Military bases get new names. Sports teams are pressured to abandon names used for generations. Corporate brands are scrubbed. Words that were perfectly ordinary yesterday are suddenly declared unacceptable today.

Then there is the language game. “Illegal alien” becomes “undocumented noncitizen.” “Mother” can become “gestational parent.” “Woman” becomes “birthing person” in certain institutional language.

 
People are told that the new terminology is not merely preferred, it is morally necessary, and anyone who objects is accused of being hateful or backward.

Now Trump does the same sort of symbolic renaming with a lake, and suddenly changing a familiar name is outrageous?

The cartoon is not really an argument that every example on the list is identical, because they are not. Some changes came from government, some from corporations, sports franchises or cultural pressure.

 
The point is the double standard. If renaming institutions and rewriting terminology is a legitimate way to reflect new values, then the people who cheered that process have a very weak argument when someone on the other side plays the same game.

I still think Lake Ontario should be Lake Ontario. But the people who spent years telling everyone that names, labels and definitions must evolve with politics probably should have expected someone else to eventually grab the eraser.

 I seem to remember also that when "Biden was president" He proposed changing the name of ANY place that had "SQUAW" in it's name,  I don't know if he ever did it but he said he was going to....And there were a lot of places called "Squaw something or other" 

California Gun Law Case Reopened After Supreme Court Ruling      Martin Walsh    September 2, 2026

The Second Amendment continues to be an issue before the current U.S. Supreme Court, after decades of prior courts refusing to hear such cases.

And not surprisingly, most of the current cases stem from blue states trying to restrict gun rights.
Advertisement

A legal challenge to California’s “sensitive places” restrictions on licensed concealed carry, May v. Bonta, was reopened on Wednesday following a recent Supreme Court decision striking down portions of Hawaii’s concealed carry law.

In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court ruled that Hawaii’s restrictions on carrying firearms on private property violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Before the Wolford decision, May v. Bonta had been stayed.
Advertisement

The Supreme Court’s ruling cleared the way for the case to move forward again, highlighting the broader impact of the decision on similar firearm restrictions across the country.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association brought May v. Bonta against California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
Advertisement

California’s “sensitive places” law prohibits individuals with concealed carry permits from carrying firearms for self-defense in a wide range of locations, including bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, parks, zoos, museums, stadiums, and other designated public places.

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision that has big implications for Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

In a 6-3 decision, the nation’s highest court reaffirmed the fundamental right of law-abiding Americans to defend themselves by striking down Hawaii’s law.

The justices ruled that the law effectively turned private businesses open to the public into gun-free zones by default.

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito declared Hawaii’s Act 52 unconstitutional.

The law criminalized licensed concealed-carry permit holders from bringing handguns onto private property open to the public—such as stores, restaurants, gas stations, and shops—unless the owner provided “express authorization.”

This flipped the longstanding common-law default, under which the public could enter unless explicitly barred.

“The regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives,” Alito wrote.

He emphasized that the law imposed “severe restrictions on the daily activities of residents who have satisfied the State’s rigorous requirements for the issuance of a carry permit.”
Advertisement

Permit holders faced a maze of potential barriers, forcing them to seek permission before entering routine establishments or risk criminal penalties.

The decision reverses the Ninth Circuit and aligns with the Court’s post-Bruen framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).

Alito meticulously applied the history-and-tradition test, finding Hawaii’s law presumptively unconstitutional because it burdens conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment — carrying arms for self-defense.

The Trump administration played a key role in bolstering the challengers.

The Solicitor General filed an amicus brief and participated in oral arguments, urging the Court to protect Second Amendment rights against state overreach.
Advertisement

The administration’s involvement underscored President Trump’s commitment to defending lawful gun owners from Biden-era style restrictions that lingered in blue states.

Officials argued the Hawaii law deprived individuals of their constitutional right to bear arms in public spaces, effectively nullifying Bruen’s protections through property-rule gimmicks.

This aligns with the Trump DOJ’s broader objectives: enforcing a national, uniform understanding of the Bill of Rights that does not bend to local “spirits” like Hawaii’s “spirit of Aloha.”

The administration sought to prevent states from using default rules to achieve what outright bans could not after Bruen.
Advertisement

Alito dismantled Hawaii’s historical analogues as inadequate. He noted the law’s departure from common law: “Under that rule, everyone, including those lawfully carrying firearms, may enter unless expressly prohibited.”

Alito argued that Hawaii’s new default “imposes a new and significant burden.”

“The Second Amendment cannot give way to ‘the spirit of Aloha’ in Hawaii… any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple… Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees,” Alito wrote.nnnn

This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.