Thanks, Period

You know what really gets me? The fact that I’ve had a menstrual cycle all these years when I didn’t even need it! As a kid, I thought the only question was how many kids I'd have, not if I'd have any at all. Now, here I am, child-free by choice, wondering why I’ve spent decades suffering through cramps, bloating, and mood swings for absolutely no reason. If I’d known early on that child-free living was an option, I’d have saved myself the trouble—and maybe even invested that tampon money into something more useful. Seriously, if you add up the cost of menstrual products over a lifetime, it’s *absurd*—close to $18,000 by some estimates! And to make matters worse, lawmakers across the country don’t even want to subsidize these products. In many states, menstrual products are still taxed as "luxury" items. Luxury? Oh please, I assure you, there’s nothing luxurious about bleeding every month.

Let’s take a moment to talk about *why* this is even still an issue. Men in power are deciding what’s necessary for women’s health, from menstrual products to birth control and abortion access. How about instead of regulating our wombs, they start funding the things we need? Basic necessities like menstrual products should be free, or at the very least, untaxed! Some states are catching on—New York and California have removed the tampon tax and now offer free products in schools and public facilities. Minnesota has joined the effort, with Governor Tim Walz signing a bill to provide free menstrual products in schools, despite backlash. The fact that we even need to push for this shows just how out of touch lawmakers can be. Meanwhile, in Texas, we can’t even get lawmakers to protect basic reproductive rights, but they have all the energy to pass restrictive abortion bans and take birth control off the table .

And speaking of taking things off the table—how is it that with all of this control over women’s health, no one told us we didn’t even need to menstruate at all? Science shows that women don’t *need* to have periods if they’re not planning to get pregnant, and yet, here we are, still fighting for the right to control what happens with our bodies. Imagine if teenagers were given the option to pause their periods and harvest their eggs, preventing all the unnecessary suffering. We could stop the cycle—pun intended—and invest that time and money elsewhere. Instead, lawmakers are focused on controlling women, rather than giving us options.

And let’s not even get started on the control men have over women’s bodies. The idea of bodily autonomy is under attack, and it's happening everywhere. I mean, it’s like a never-ending game of who gets to make the rules about what we do with our health. Just last year, Texas passed Senate Bill 8, which bans most abortions after about six weeks, before many women even know they're pregnant! Meanwhile, in California, they’re finally getting it right by offering free menstrual products in schools and public facilities. It’s about time, right? But progress is slow, and we’re still dealing with places that try to defund Planned Parenthood while pushing policies to limit abortion access. It’s wild how many hoops we have to jump through just to maintain our bodily autonomy  .

And what about those kids these lawmakers claim to care so much about? Nearly 24,000 teens aged 15 and up are stuck in the foster care system, many of whom may never be adopted. Yet the same politicians who want to force women into motherhood are doing very little to address the crises these kids face. These teens are fighting for stability while we’re out here fighting for control over our own reproductive rights .

Now, I’ve made my peace with the fact that I didn’t opt out of menstruation sooner, but here’s the kicker: the one thing I could always count on was my period. While lawmakers and men were busy telling me what I couldn’t do, my body reminded me every month that, like clockwork, I had this little sliver of consistency. It’s funny in a twisted way, that the thing society loves to ignore or overregulate was the one thing I could always count on. So, while the world tries to control women's health, I find a certain ironic comfort in the fact that, through all of it, my menstrual cycle has always had my back.

Donor States, Immigrants, and the Money Grab No One Talks About

---

If you’ve ever heard someone complain about “donor states,” you probably thought, oh, those wealthy states paying more in taxes than they get back. And if you’ve followed news about immigration, you’ve probably noticed the endless finger-pointing at immigrants — as if they’re the problem, as if they’re the ones draining resources.

Here’s the truth: the real story isn’t about fairness, or crime, or who deserves what. It’s about money, power, and politics.

Since 2025, the federal administration has gone on what feels like a mission to punish states that don’t fall in line. And who are these states? Often the so-called “donor states” — places like California, New York, Minnesota, and a few others. These are the states that send more tax dollars to Washington than they get back in federal spending. Think about it: billions in revenue that help fund the rest of the country. And yet, instead of respect or recognition, these states have been targeted.

Take Minnesota, for example. Federal officials threatened to hold back hundreds of millions in Medicaid funding, citing alleged “fraud concerns.” On the surface, that sounds reasonable, but the state’s leaders insist it’s politically motivated — a punishment for resisting federal directives. Imagine what that means for real people: seniors waiting for prescription coverage, families depending on health services for children with disabilities, hospitals scrambling to fill gaps. California, one of the largest donor states in the country, has faced constant legal and political pressure while trying to provide health care, housing, and education resources to immigrant families. Meanwhile, other states like New York, Washington, and Massachusetts have been scrutinized for “sanctuary policies” or progressive programs, even though these initiatives don’t cost the federal government anything extra — in fact, they save money in the long run.

And let’s talk about immigrants — the people often used as scapegoats in all of this. The reality is that immigrants are major contributors to the economy. They pay taxes, run small businesses, and fill essential jobs in health care, construction, food service, and technology. A Cato Institute analysis found that over decades, immigrants have contributed a fiscal surplus of trillions of dollars, paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits. And yet, since 2025, federal policy has leaned heavily toward enforcement: arrests, deportations, and aggressive raids that disrupt communities and local economies. Cities like Denver have stepped in with protective measures, restricting federal agents from certain properties to prevent unnecessary detentions.

Why does this matter? Because these attacks aren’t abstract policy debates — they have real consequences for real people. Cutting federal funds from donor states can reduce access to healthcare, education, and infrastructure projects that millions rely on. It can also shift the burden to local taxpayers, often hitting the same people who are already paying the highest taxes. Immigrant communities face family separations, economic instability, and fear of participating in civic life, even when they’re law-abiding residents contributing to the state’s well-being.

Consider this: if California, a state that contributes billions more than it receives, is forced to redirect resources to handle federal enforcement priorities, that’s money that can’t go to schools, roads, or disaster response. For example, California has invested tens of millions in local programs for immigrant students — programs that could face cuts if federal funding is withheld. If Minnesota loses Medicaid funding, vulnerable families, seniors, and people with disabilities feel it first. And when immigrants — the workers who keep hospitals running, food on shelves, and communities vibrant — are threatened, the economy and social fabric weaken for everyone. Even something as small as a delayed bus service, a cut after-school program, or a reduced vaccination clinic can have ripple effects on a community.

The pattern is clear: states that contribute the most financially, and communities that contribute socially and economically, are being attacked — not because of policy failures, but because of political leverage and control over resources. Cuts to federal funding, raids, legal threats — it’s all part of the same story.

But the fight isn’t one-sided. Donor states aren’t taking this lying down. California is challenging federal funding cuts in court while supporting immigrant families. Maryland is suing to block detention centers. Local leaders across the country are finding creative ways to protect communities, even under pressure. These examples show that resistance is possible, but it requires awareness and public support. For instance, when Denver limited federal enforcement in local properties, it not only protected families but also set a precedent for other cities facing similar federal pressure.

At the end of the day, this isn’t about fairness or safety. It’s about power, influence, and the bottom line. And while the headlines might make it look like immigrants and donor states are “problems,” the reality is the opposite: they’re the ones holding the system up, quietly paying into it, contributing to it, and trying to make it work.

So when you hear rhetoric about “states taking more than their share” or “illegal immigrants draining resources,” remember: it’s not just a story — it’s a warning sign. Someone is deciding who gets money, who gets protected, and who pays the price. And if we don’t notice, the consequences will hit all of us — the taxpayers, the local communities, and the people who are already doing the most to keep our country running.

This is why paying attention matters. It matters when headlines try to divide us instead of showing the truth. It matters when decisions about funding or enforcement are made in a political vacuum rather than based on evidence and fairness. And it matters because the more we understand who is really contributing and who is really being punished, the better we can advocate for policies that actually work for everyone — not just those in power.

---

What You Can Do: A Call to Action

Awareness is the first step, but action is what makes change real. Here’s how you can help:

• Notice and Share: Pay attention to local news about donor states and immigrant communities. Share stories with friends, family, or on social media to break through misinformation and highlight the contributions of both.

• Support Local Programs: Many communities run programs for immigrant families, from school tutoring to legal aid. Even small donations or volunteering can make a huge difference.

• Advocate for Fair Policies: Contact your elected officials and demand that funding decisions and immigration enforcement be fair, evidence-based, and free from political retaliation.

• Engage in Civic Life: Attend city council meetings, school board discussions, or community forums. When people show up, it’s harder for decisions to be made quietly that hurt the most vulnerable.

• Amplify Voices: Follow local leaders, immigrant advocates, and donor-state officials who are fighting for equity. Share their stories and perspectives — sometimes a single story can shift public perception more than headlines ever will.

We can’t sit back and let political games decide who gets funding, protection, or recognition. By noticing, sharing, and taking action, we can make sure that donor states and immigrant communities are not only defended but also celebrated for the contributions they make every single day.

---

Who’s Really Paying for Social Security and Medicare—and Where’s the Money Going?

Imagine working your whole life, paying taxes faithfully, and then being told you won’t get what you earned. Sounds outrageous, right? Yet that’s exactly the situation for millions of immigrants in America. Every year, they contribute up to $100 billion into Social Security and Medicare—but most are ineligible to claim those benefits.

Meanwhile, the current administration is talking about cutting Medicaid and privatizing Social Security, threatening the very programs that citizens rely on. If immigrants and citizens alike are paying into these systems, then the big question becomes: where is all that money actually going?

Immigrants—both documented and undocumented—are essentially subsidizing a system they may never access. Undocumented workers pay Social Security taxes using ITINs, yet cannot claim benefits. Legal immigrants contribute for years before even becoming eligible. And now, with potential cuts and privatization looming, the funds they’ve poured into the system could be siphoned away, redirected, or exposed to market risks, leaving future retirees with far less than promised.

This isn’t just a policy debate—it’s about fairness. Millions of families depend on these programs. Millions of workers contribute their hard-earned money in good faith. Yet the system increasingly seems opaque, unaccountable, and tilted. People who work and pay taxes have every right to know exactly how their money is being used—and to ensure it is being used for its intended purpose.

Think about the grandfather relying on Social Security for his medicine. Think about the young immigrant worker paying into Medicare, knowing they may never see a dime. Every dollar they contribute is a reminder of a system that collects money but doesn’t always deliver on its promises.

Social Security and Medicare were meant to be fair, reliable, and transparent. Right now, they are none of those things. We need accountability, clarity, and respect for the people—citizens and immigrants—whose work funds these programs. Because at the end of the day, it’s not just about money. It’s about trust, fairness, and the promise that the system will protect the people who keep it running.

---

FAITH WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE A BRANDING STRATEGY

I can’t help but think about Matthew 21 whenever I hear that Donald Trump is selling Bibles. The image is jarring — faith being packaged and marketed like a product, tied to political identity. In that moment, I imagine Jesus walking into the temple courts during Passover, where pilgrims were crowded around money changers and animal sellers, trying to navigate the transactional demands of worship. The place meant for prayer and connection with God had become a marketplace. Jesus’ response was immediate and uncompromising: he overturned the tables and declared, “My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers.” Worship was never meant to be commodified, and faith was never meant to be leveraged for personal gain or political branding.

This idea is reinforced in John 13:35, where Jesus told his disciples that everyone would know them by their love. Not by what they sold, promoted, or posed with, but by the tangible, active love they extended to others. Faith is not a symbol to display. It is an action to live.

This truth becomes even more vivid in Matthew 25:35–40, where Jesus describes what faithfulness looks like in the real world. He talks about hunger, thirst, strangers needing welcome, people lacking clothing, those who are sick, and those imprisoned. These were immediate, life-or-death realities in first-century Judea. Hunger was constant. Water was precious and scarce. Travelers relied on hospitality to survive. Clothing was not guaranteed, illness often led to social isolation, and imprisonment stripped people of almost everything. To follow Jesus meant entering into these realities, seeing the suffering, and acting to alleviate it.

Modern leaders give us concrete examples of what this looks like when faith is lived. George W. Bush launched PEPFAR in 2003, saving over 25 million lives by funding HIV/AIDS treatment around the globe. Jimmy Carter has spent decades building homes with Habitat for Humanity, restoring dignity and stability for thousands of families. Barack Obama expanded health coverage for over 20 million Americans through the Affordable Care Act and strengthened nutrition programs that fed millions during economic downturns. Even infrastructure projects like federal clean water and lead pipe removal reflect the same principle: meeting human need in practical, measurable ways. This is faith expressed through action, not slogans.

Then consider the contrast. In 2025 and 2026, policies implemented by Trump and many MAGA-aligned leaders show the consequences when faith is treated as a marketing tool rather than lived as mercy. Asylum hearings are being canceled or fast-tracked for denials, leaving vulnerable people without due process. Refugees with pending court cases face detention, and some are deported to third countries without notice. Hundreds of thousands are stuck in legal limbo, and ICE agents have made arrests of people who are already under active protections. Policies like these actively hinder the ability of people to survive and thrive. They stand in stark contrast to the call to “welcome the stranger” and “care for the least of these.”

At the same time, Trump’s sale of “God Bless the USA” Bibles demonstrates a clear shift from substance to brand. Faith becomes a commodity, and loyalty to a political identity is elevated above the tangible care of those in need. Even criminal convictions, admissions of sexual assault, avoidance of taxes, and other transgressions have not diminished the political influence of this brand. Faith is no longer about living mercifully; it is about signaling allegiance, performing identity, and selling an image.

Scripture repeatedly draws this distinction. Matthew 21 warns against turning sacred things into profit. John 13 tells us love is the defining marker of discipleship. Matthew 25 measures faithfulness by how we feed, clothe, welcome, heal, and visit. Jesus did not measure devotion by who held a Bible or who waved a flag. He measured it by how deeply people entered into the lives of those in need and alleviated suffering.

Holding a Bible in your hand does not make you a disciple. Selling one does not make you righteous. Living faith means extending mercy even when it is inconvenient, difficult, or costly. It means feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, caring for the sick, and standing with the imprisoned. It means turning our actions toward others rather than turning sacred things into products.

As Jesus said, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these… you did for Me.” The question is not who is holding a Bible. The question is who is living it.

---

You Logically Shouldn't Trust Donald Trump

Skepticism is not the same thing as cynicism. Cynicism assumes bad intent. Skepticism simply asks for evidence—especially when a pattern has already been established. When it comes to evaluating statements or policies supported by Donald Trump, the case for heightened scrutiny is not emotional or partisan. It is logical.

In any arena—science, journalism, medicine, finance—credibility is cumulative. It builds over time through accuracy, consistency, and respect for institutional processes. The reverse is also true. When a public figure demonstrates repeated departures from those standards, skepticism becomes a rational response.

Consider the January 2021 phone call in which Trump asked Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overturn the state’s certified election result. The recording is public. Regardless of political affiliation, a request to alter a certified outcome raises legitimate questions about judgment and intent. Logically, when future claims about election integrity are made by the same individual, it is reasonable to demand strong, independent verification.

That pattern continued after the 2020 election. Dozens of court cases challenging the results were filed across multiple states. Judges—including some appointed by Trump—dismissed those cases due to lack of evidence. Yet the claims of widespread fraud persisted. When assertions are repeatedly contradicted by judicial findings, the credibility of similar future claims is diminished. That is not ideology; it is pattern recognition.

The events of January 6, 2021 further intensified scrutiny. A mob stormed the U.S. Capitol during the certification of electoral votes after weeks of rhetoric asserting the election had been stolen. While debate continues over responsibility and intent, the undeniable reality is that institutional processes were disrupted following those claims. When rhetoric and institutional instability intersect, subsequent warnings about threats to democracy reasonably invite careful examination rather than automatic acceptance.

Beyond election-related matters, there is the broader issue of factual accuracy. Fact-checking organizations such as The Washington Post and PolitiFact documented thousands of false or misleading statements during Trump’s presidency. No public official speaks with perfect precision at all times. But volume matters. Frequency matters. When inaccuracies are not isolated but habitual, the rational response is to elevate one’s evidentiary standards.

Legal circumstances also factor into credibility. Trump became the first former U.S. president to face multiple criminal indictments, including cases connected to classified documents and alleged election interference. Indictments are not convictions, and due process matters. Still, when legal proceedings directly relate to the subjects on which someone is making public claims, skepticism is not hostility—it is prudence.

There have also been moments that, while perhaps less consequential in isolation, reinforce the broader pattern. In 2019, during Hurricane Dorian, Trump displayed a weather map that appeared altered, contradicting forecasts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he publicly downplayed the severity of the virus at times, even as later recordings suggested he privately understood its risks. Discrepancies between public messaging and documented facts deepen the logic for caution.

Taken together, these episodes form a consistent narrative: repeated assertions that conflict with verified information, pressure applied to institutional actors, and continued promotion of claims rejected by courts and oversight bodies. When this pattern exists, skepticism is not reactionary. It is proportional.

Importantly, skepticism does not mean reflexive rejection. It does not mean opposing something simply because Trump supports it. A policy proposal can be evaluated on its merits regardless of its sponsor. But the speaker’s record informs the level of scrutiny required. If a contractor repeatedly mismeasures blueprints, you double-check the next set. If a CEO repeatedly misstates financials, investors ask more questions. The same principle applies in politics.

This is not about party. The standard should be universal. Any political figure—Republican, Democrat, or independent—who demonstrates a sustained pattern of inaccurate statements, institutional pressure, or evidence-free claims should face heightened scrutiny.

Credibility accumulates. So does doubt.

In that light, being skeptical of claims or initiatives supported by Donald Trump is not an emotional reflex. It is a reasoned response to documented history. The rational position is neither blind trust nor automatic dismissal. It is simple: verify, corroborate, and require evidence proportionate to the record.

You Did It Joe

Joe Biden has been in public service so long that at this point, American history occasionally clears its throat and says, “Joe, you remember this part, right?” And he does. Not because he’s clinging to relevance, but because he was actually there—sometimes literally holding the pen, sometimes holding the grief, sometimes holding the country together with empathy and a slightly raspy whisper.

Let’s start with the obvious: Joe Biden did not wake up one morning at age 78 and decide to cosplay as a politician. This man was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972, when gas was cheap, phones had cords, and “streaming” referred exclusively to water. He was 29 years old, which meant the Constitution technically allowed it but Congress side-eyed him like, “Is your mom coming to swear you in?”

And then tragedy hit immediately. Before he could even take his Senate seat, Biden lost his wife and daughter in a car accident. Two of his sons were critically injured. Most people would have walked away from public life forever. Biden didn’t. He took the train from Delaware to Washington every single day so he could tuck his boys into bed at night. This wasn’t branding. This was survival. The Amtrak conductor knew him by name. America didn’t know it yet, but empathy was being forged the hard way.

From there, Joe Biden did the unglamorous thing that doesn’t trend on social media: he worked. For 36 years in the Senate. Committee meetings. Foreign policy briefings. Judiciary hearings. Legislation that required reading, revising, negotiating, and—brace yourself—compromising. He chaired the Judiciary Committee, helped shape major violence-prevention laws, played a key role in foreign relations, and showed up for funerals, hearings, and midnight votes long after the cameras left.

Was he perfect? No. Was any senator navigating the political climate of the ’80s and ’90s perfect? Absolutely not. But Biden’s record shows evolution—something we say we want in leaders until they actually demonstrate it. He learned. He changed. He apologized. He grew. And somehow, in American politics, growth is treated like a character flaw instead of evidence of humanity.

Then came the Vice Presidency. Eight years as Barack Obama’s right-hand man, emotional support human, and resident explainer of Congress. Biden wasn’t the “cool” one. He was the “call you after midnight because something awful happened and you don’t want to be alone” one. He helped shepherd the Recovery Act after the 2008 financial crisis, worked on cancer research after losing his son Beau, and became the administration’s bridge to blue-collar voters who felt unseen.

And then—because life apparently decided Joe Biden hadn’t been tested enough—he ran for President after burying another child. At an age when most people are aggressively defending their right to never open another Excel spreadsheet again.

He didn’t run on vibes. He ran on stability. On restoring norms. On believing that government is supposed to function, not perform. On the radical idea that democracy requires maintenance. He inherited a pandemic, an economy in freefall, global instability, and a country that couldn’t even agree on basic facts. And instead of theatrics, he brought process. Instead of chaos, he brought competence. Instead of slogans, he brought… binders. Lots of binders.

Joe Biden is not flashy. He will never dunk on opponents with a viral one-liner. He sometimes loses a sentence mid-flight and just lands it wherever the runway happens to be. But he has spent over half a century doing the same thing: showing up, taking hits, absorbing grief, and continuing to believe that government can be a force for good if the people inside it actually care.

In a political culture obsessed with disruption, Joe Biden represents something deeply countercultural: endurance. The long game. The belief that public service is not about being adored, but about being accountable.

He is the living archive of American governance—flawed, resilient, stubbornly hopeful. A man who has outlasted trends, scandals, and several generations of pundits who confidently declared him “finished” every decade since the Carter administration.

And honestly? That kind of commitment deserves flowers. Or at least a standing ovation. Or maybe just a really good nap—finally not on Air Force One.

Because love him or critique him, Joe Biden didn’t just pass through history.

He clocked in.

Human Rights Come Before Immigration Status

Imagine a young girl hiding in a crowded alley, trying to stay out of sight. In her home country, speaking up against the government or even being the wrong religion could get her hurt—or worse. She flees, traveling with her family, crossing rivers and dusty roads, looking for a place where she can be safe. When she reaches a new country, she does not have papers, a visa, or permission to enter. She is scared, exhausted, and alone—but she is still protected by the law.

That protection comes from something called human rights. Human rights are rules that say every person deserves safety and dignity, no matter where they come from or what their legal status is. Crossing a border without permission does not erase these rights. In fact, the law is very clear: you cannot send someone back to danger.

This principle is called non-refoulement. It’s a big word, but it is simple: no government may return a person to a place where they would face persecution, torture, or serious threats to life or freedom. Non-refoulement comes from international agreements like the 1951 Refugee Convention, the 1967 Protocol, and the Convention Against Torture, and it is considered so fundamental that it applies even beyond countries that signed the treaties.

The United States has incorporated these protections into its own laws. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person may apply for asylum regardless of how they entered the country—whether at a legal port of entry or somewhere else. Everyone must have a chance to present their story and receive due process before any deportation. That means the government must carefully evaluate the risks before making a decision, and no one can be sent back to danger without that review.

Think about a journalist who exposed corruption and is now being hunted by authorities. Think about a woman fleeing domestic violence in a country where the police cannot—or will not—protect her. Think about a family escaping a neighborhood controlled by gangs with a record of killing anyone who resists. All of these people could face death, imprisonment, or torture if sent back. U.S. law recognizes that their fear is real and requires that it be taken seriously.

Even children are protected. Imagine a small child arriving at a border after fleeing war. They may have lost family along the way, traveling alone or with relatives. They may have no legal papers, no money, and no idea what comes next. But human rights law ensures that the child cannot be forcibly returned to a place where they would face danger. Their claim must be heard, their safety prioritized.

This does not mean that everyone who arrives is allowed to stay forever. Borders exist. Immigration laws exist. Many claims are evaluated and denied. But human safety must come first. Every person has the right to be heard, to have their story considered, and to be protected from harm.

Courts in the United States have confirmed that these protections apply to everyone on U.S. soil, not just citizens. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that non-citizens are “persons” under the Constitution, entitled to due process. In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Court emphasized that even immigrants facing deportation must be treated fairly, and their detention and removal cannot be arbitrary.

Human rights are not loopholes. They are not excuses to ignore laws or borders. They exist precisely to prevent cruelty and injustice, even when governments face pressure to act quickly. You can support border enforcement and immigration laws while still insisting that no one is sent back to danger. In fact, the law requires it.

Immigration status is a legal category. Human rights are a legal obligation. Borders exist. Laws exist. But above all, humanity comes first. Every person deserves a fair chance to be safe, and no one should ever be deported to harm.

---

References

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 14 (1948)
• Immigration & Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1)
• Refugee Convention, art. 33 (1951) & 1967 Protocol
• Convention Against Torture, art. 3
• Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)

---