This week, the New York Times published an article called "Americans Are Turning Against Gay People," and if you're wondering whether the paper has completely lost touch with reality, the answer is yes.

The piece opens with some gushing about a show I’ve never even heard of — and I suspect you haven’t, either — called Heated Rivalry, featuring gay hockey players, suggesting that its success proves "acceptance of queer love continues to grow."

The authors, Tessa Charlesworth and Eli Finkel, lament that this is not the case.

"We wish we could share that optimism," they write, before citing research showing that acceptance of gay people peaked around 2020 and has "sharply reversed" since then.

I’d be willing to bet that most people haven’t heard of Heated Rivalry, but even so, it’s irrelevant.

Gay characters have been on television and in movies for decades, often as leads.

These days, you’d have a tougher time finding a show or movie that doesn’t feature LGBTQ characters.

If you watch game shows, you’ve probably wondered if they have quotas for LGBTQ contestants, and if they’re required to boast about their sexual orientation.

Nevertheless, the article expresses shock that anti-gay bias reversed course after two decades.

Now, to paraphrase another famous intuitive seat-of-their-pants fictional type, I am not a smart girl, but I know what a weird coincidence is.

If one really pays attention, I would have to say we have several all running in sequence in Minneapolis, which makes it an even bigger weird coincidence in itself.

Which I'd bet good money means that, from the beginning, none of this has been a coincidence at all.

You tell me.

The very first thing to take note of is how all these people appeared on Minnesota streets - specifically - with the same printed signs and shrieking the same anti-ICE, pro-illegal immigrant language.

It's awfully peculiar considering that illegal alien deportations had been humming along unabated and virtually unnoticed for years, right up to the point when there was a spike and a 180° reversal of tone and rhetoric.

Fortunately, there are people who chart these things, which helps pinpoint the exact moment the tenor shifts.

[Daniel Hannan, Baron Hannan of Kingsclere, is a friend of mine, member of the British House of Lords, and Britain’s smartest patriot.  He published this article in the Daily Telegraph today, entitled: Britain Is Heading For Utter Ruin, And Neither The Parties Nor The Voters Are Prepared To Stop It. 

It is a terrifying warning of what will happen to America if the Dems are allowed to rig the midterms little more than 9 months from now, because Sens Thune and Grassley are such pussies they won’t rescind the filibuster as Trump demands in order to pass the SAVE Act and other legislation requiring Paper Ballots, Citizenship ID, Same-Day Voting, and banning Mail-in Ballots.  Read what Daniel has to say about Britain now in the light of America’s future right around the corner.]

What a dreadful week. For the first time, I find myself wondering whether there will be anything left to salvage. I don’t mean Keir Starmer, whose approval ratings have already collapsed irremediably. No, I mean for Britain.

Everything that elevated us above the run of nations is being lost: our competitiveness, our sovereignty, our credit-worthiness, our prestige. We are diminished morally, financially and, after the Chagos surrender, physically.

This morning the Supreme Court will hear Trump v. Cook, a case that began with an unprecedented move: President Trump fired Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. As usual, lower courts blocked him.

The press is framing this as a fight about “central bank independence” and even inflation fears. But that deliberately misses the real question at stake:

Do we still have a Constitution, or do we have a permanent ruling class — credentialed, insulated, and effectively unfireable — running the country while elections serve as a ceremonial change of figureheads?

Trump v. Cook is not an isolated dispute. It is the Federal Reserve chapter in the same story the Court already confronted last month in Trump v. Slaughter, the FTC case that squarely asks the Supreme Court to admit what has been obvious since 1935: Humphrey’s Executor was a constitutional disaster.

Simply put, today’s argument is about whether the Supreme Court will continue to bless an unconstitutional fourth branch of government, run by “experts,” insulated from the voters, and wielding coercive power without democratic accountability.

Or to put that another way, does the Constitution’s Article 2, Section 1 have any meaning?

Donald Trump’s determination to bring Greenland under American control has been widely mocked as eccentric or theatrical.

That reaction misses the point.

Beneath the blunt language and headline-grabbing delivery lies a strategic argument rooted in geography, military physics, alliance realities, and the accelerating competition among global powers in the Arctic.

Trump’s fixation on Greenland is not a whim. It is the product of a long-running belief that the island represents one of the most valuable pieces of territory on Earth for American security.

Failing to secure it would amount to a historic act of negligence.

Trump’s public interest in Greenland first emerged in August 2019, when reports revealed that he had privately asked advisers about purchasing the island from Denmark.

He confirmed the interest himself, describing Greenland as strategically interesting and emphasizing the close alliance between the United States and Denmark.

At the time, he framed the idea as exploratory rather than urgent, noting that it was not the top priority on his agenda.

Yet even then, the logic was clear. The United States already provided extensive military protection to Denmark. Meanwhile, Greenland sat at the crossroads of American, European, and Arctic security.