In a recently sat down with Ryan Mauro, a national security expert at the Capital Research Center, to discuss the growing extremist movement in America—particularly at Columbia University. What we uncovered is deeply disturbing.

While the media portrays the unrest at Columbia as a simple student protest, Ryan’s research tells a different story. He has identified radical organizations, including Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) and Students for Justice in Palestine, as key players. These groups are not just advocating for Palestinian rights—they are openly supporting Hamas, promoting civil unrest, and calling for violence.

One of the leaders of these movements, Mahmoud Khalil, is not even an American citizen. He entered the country on an F1 visa and was later granted permanent resident status. Many Americans don’t realize that permanent residency does NOT guarantee citizenship, and Khalil’s participation in these protests violates the conditions of his stay. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the U.S. has every right to deport individuals who express support for terrorist organizations.

Perhaps one of the most shocking revelations is that Rep. Ilhan Omar’s daughter was actively involved in organizing these radical protests. While the media attacks conservative figures for far less, Omar’s daughter’s participation has been conveniently ignored.

If America is to remain strong, we must recognize that our enemies don’t need to invade with tanks and missiles. They are already here, using our own laws and freedoms to sow chaos. The protests at Columbia were not spontaneous; they were meticulously planned. They involved vandalism, property destruction, and even the unlawful detainment of janitorial staff. This is not a partisan issue—it’s a national security crisis.

What Can You Do?

“America isn’t just a piece of land—it’s the spirit of the people who fight to protect it. This is a fight worth having.” – Andy Parrish

A Continuing Resolution (CR) is Congress’s way of kicking the fiscal can down the road. Instead of passing an actual budget, they pass a short-term funding bill to keep the government running—often loaded with pork and unnecessary spending. The media and politicians use scare tactics, claiming that without a CR, the government will “shut down,” leaving grandma starving in the cold and soldiers without pay.

Except that’s not true.

If Congress doesn’t pass a budget or a CR, only discretionary spending is affected. Mandatory spending—which includes Social Security, Medicare, veteran benefits, and more—keeps flowing automatically. So no, grandma isn’t eating dog food, and our troops aren’t left stranded.

What shuts down?

Meanwhile, the real issue—out-of-control government spending—gets ignored.

Here’s why conservatives should always vote NO on continuing resolutions:

As a huge Trump supporter, it pains me to say this: Trump is dead wrong for endorsing this CR. He’s attacking principled conservatives like Rep. Thomas Massie, one of the few people in Washington actually fighting for fiscal sanity.

We didn’t elect Trump to continue Biden-era spending levels. We elected him to cut spending and put America First. If Republicans in Congress had a spine, they’d pass a real budget instead of caving every few months.

It’s time to wake up. If you hear someone pushing a CR, tell them: “Nope. That’s not a budget. That’s a scam.”

🔹 Follow me on X @andyparrish for more unfiltered truth
🔹 Subscribe to my podcast for more hard-hitting analysis

And remember: I’m right. Deal with it.

The war in Ukraine isn’t as simple as the media makes it out to be. While social media warriors change their profile pictures and politicians throw billions of taxpayer dollars at the conflict, few are asking the real questions. Why is the U.S. so invested in Ukraine? What are the economic and strategic interests at play? And why does President Zelensky act more like a Hollywood PR expert than a wartime leader? In this post, we break down the history, the stakes, and the uncomfortable truths about America’s involvement in Ukraine.

Governor Tony Evers recently came under fire for altering legal language in Wisconsin to remove traditional family terms like “mother” and “father” in favor of gender-neutral terminology, including the controversial replacement of “mother” with “inseminated person.” Evers has claimed that this is about ensuring legal clarity for parents using in vitro fertilization (IVF), but the truth is far different.

Under Wisconsin Statute § 16.47, the governor is required to submit a biennial budget proposal to the Joint Finance Committee (JFC), which consists of 16 legislative members. This proposal is subject to amendments and must pass both legislative chambers in identical form before it becomes law. After passage, the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) finalizes language and oversees implementation.

Evers, however, misrepresented his role in this process. He claimed that the decision to alter these gendered terms was a necessary legal update to accommodate IVF services. However, IVF-related protections have long been covered under existing state and federal law, including the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Wisconsin Statute § 103.10, which already grant leave and protections to individuals who give birth—regardless of how they conceive.

When confronted about the changes, Evers displayed classic signs of deception:

His response was not one of transparency but rather a “block and bridge” strategy—dodging the question and redirecting attention to a strawman argument about Republicans allegedly opposing IVF, which is false.

Evers didn’t just tweak some wording—he intentionally manipulated the law to conform to a radical ideological agenda while misleading Wisconsinites about the reasoning. The media failed to challenge him, but the facts are clear: his changes were unnecessary, his justification was false, and his deception was obvious.

Wisconsin voters deserve better than a governor who plays word games with the law while gaslighting the public.

In a shocking attempt to push gender-neutral language, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers’ budget proposal sought to replace biological terms such as “mother” and “father” with “inseminated person” and “spouse.” This move sparked outrage among conservatives who see it as yet another effort to erase traditional family values.

Evers’ proposed changes included:

The justification? According to Evers, it was meant to ensure “legal certainty” for individuals undergoing IVF (in vitro fertilization). However, no other state requires this kind of language shift to guarantee IVF rights, making Evers’ rationale highly questionable.

When asked about the changes, Evers immediately looked down—classic defensive body language. As Andy Parrish explains in the latest episode of I’m Right, Deal With It, looking down and to the right typically indicates an emotional argument rather than a factual one.

Throughout the exchange, Evers repeatedly asserted that the change was to “help moms,” yet failed to explain how removing the word “mother” actually benefits women. Moreover, the bill also altered terms like husband and wife, which have nothing to do with maternal healthcare.

One glaring issue: No major group had publicly requested these changes. The Wisconsin budget process involves submission to the Joint Finance Committee, where amendments are made before being voted on by the state legislature. So, when Evers claims “all we want”, the question remains—who exactly is we?

This move is part of a broader trend by progressive politicians to erase biological realities in favor of so-called inclusivity. However, inclusivity should not come at the cost of erasing universally understood and respected terms like mother and father.

If Wisconsin Democrats truly wanted to help parents, they could focus on expanding parental leave policies or improving childcare affordability—rather than engaging in ideological wordplay.

The bottom line? No one needed or asked for this change. It’s a blatant attempt to push an agenda that most Wisconsinites do not support. Governor Evers should be focusing on real issues facing Wisconsin families instead of attempting to redefine biological terms for political gain.

Cringe-worthy land acknowledgments are everywhere, but let’s be real—America wasn’t stolen, it was settled, fought for, and built by hardworking Americans. So why haven’t the woke crowd given their land back? Because it’s never been about justice—it’s about control. Let’s break it down.

Well, Pam Bondi hit the ground running on her first day of work at the Department of Justice. She’s halting all DOJ grants and funding to sanctuary cities like Madison and Milwaukee. And I say it’s about time.

Why would anyone expect the Department of Justice to keep throwing cash at cities that are helping criminal aliens play hide-and-seek from federal law enforcement officials?

These sanctuary cities are about to get a harsh reality check, and hashtag campaigns like #SanctuaryCityStrong and #NoHumanIsIllegal might earn them a participation trophy —  It will no longer earn them the cash they’ve come to rely on.

At the end of the day, the most important job of any jurisdiction is the safety and well-being of its citizens. It’s time these public officials grow up, follow the law, and maybe, just maybe, put their constituency first.

When Donald Trump reintroduced tariffs on North American trade partners, critics predicted disaster: skyrocketing prices, international outrage, and economic turmoil. But reality paints a different picture — one in which tariffs are a powerful tool to protect American industry, secure borders, and assert economic leadership.

A critical distinction must be made between tariffs and taxes. Taxes burden American families and businesses, often discouraging economic growth. Tariffs, however, are targeted economic tools designed to correct trade imbalances and encourage fair trade practices.

Before the implementation of NAFTA in 1994, the United States maintained a $1.6 billion trade surplus with Mexico. By 2020, this had turned into a $101 billion trade deficit, as American manufacturing jobs moved south due to cheaper labor and fewer regulations. The same trend was seen with Canada, where the U.S. now faces a $21 billion goods trade deficit despite our critical role in refining Canadian oil.

Mexico and Canada are far more reliant on the United States than we are on them:

What do we send them in return? The list reads like a survival kit for modern economies:

If these nations retaliated with tariffs, they would only cripple their economies, as they have limited alternatives for sourcing these necessities.

Unlike Mexico and Canada, the United States has abundant options for sourcing goods:

This flexibility underscores America’s strength in global trade negotiations.

As Trump correctly identified, future conflicts won’t be fought with traditional weapons but through economic leverage and societal unrest. By using tariffs strategically, America can maintain its dominance while safeguarding jobs and industries at home.

Far from being a reckless gamble, tariffs are a calculated move to protect American interests. With Mexico and Canada heavily dependent on the U.S. market, we hold the upper hand. It’s time to use that leverage to ensure a prosperous and secure future for American workers.

The recent collision between a Black Hawk helicopter and a commercial airliner near Washington, D.C., has sent shockwaves through the aviation community and beyond. This tragic event, resulting in the loss of numerous lives, raises serious questions about the safety of our skies, particularly in high-traffic, restricted airspaces like that around the nation’s capital. On a recent episode of The Andy Parrish Show: I’m Right – Deal with It!, I spoke with Colonel Big Joe, a highly experienced Marine pilot, to unpack the complexities of this incident and delve into some of the critical factors that may have contributed to it.

The airspace around Washington, D.C., is one of the most heavily regulated in the United States. Since 9/11, the FAA has implemented an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), which requires specific qualifications, training, and communication protocols for all aircraft operating within it. Pilots must be meticulous about who they talk to and the codes they use on their transponders. Failure to comply can result in flight violations, potentially leading to being intercepted and even forced to land.

Military helicopters, such as the Black Hawk involved in the collision, frequently operate in the DC area for training and transport. These flights, often conducted at low levels along the Potomac River, serve to maintain pilot proficiency with navigation, checkpoints, and obstacles. Many of these training flights are done at night, often using night vision goggles (NVGs). While NVGs enhance visibility in the dark, they also present challenges, notably the loss of depth perception. Pilots must train to compensate for this limitation, scanning and moving their heads constantly to create a sense of depth.

The seemingly improbable nature of this collision is worth examining. I asked mathematicians and AIs to calculate the odds of a collision between a Black Hawk and a commercial airliner, and all returned with the same answer – that it was not probable. Colonel Big Joe compared the situation to a complicated math word problem, noting how even the slightest change in conditions, such as a small change in speed or direction, can lead to unforeseen outcomes.

Both commercial airliners and military aircraft are equipped with various technologies intended to enhance safety, but these are not foolproof. Commercial airliners use ADS-B technology to track aircraft. However, there can be a significant time delay in the information displayed on screens, sometimes by as much as 30 seconds, or a mile to a mile and a half. This delay can be critical in situations where aircraft are moving at high speeds. Additionally, while low altitude warning systems are present in some aircraft, there is not always a system to warn of an aircraft coming directly at you.

The investigation into the collision will thoroughly examine the human factors involved. Investigators will scrutinize the pilots’ personal lives, including any potential stressors like divorce, substance use, or medications. Air traffic controller recordings and flight data will also be examined to determine whether there were any errors in communication or instructions.

Colonel Big Joe recounted a previous incident in the mid-90s where two Marine helicopters collided during night vision goggle training. This underscores the risks inherent in complex training missions, even with experienced pilots. We also discussed the “Miracle on the Hudson,” where Captain Sully Sullenberger’s experience and instinct led to a successful water landing despite the checklist telling him to try for the airport. Checklists are good, but experience is better, and pilots are rigorously trained for these kinds of situations.

The collision of the Black Hawk and commercial airliner is a complex event with multiple contributing factors. This discussion offers valuable insights into the challenges of operating in controlled airspace, the limitations of technology, and the critical role of both training and experience. It underscores the need for a thorough investigation and the potential for changes that will help to ensure the safety of air travel for everyone.

Let’s cut through the noise and get straight to the facts. Birthright citizenship, the notion that any child born on U.S. soil automatically becomes an American citizen, has been the subject of heated debate, especially in the context of immigration. But the truth of the matter? It’s not as simple as people make it out to be.

Born from the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, birthright citizenship is rooted in a post-Civil War effort to guarantee equal protection under the law. But does it still hold the same weight today? Is it truly the right we think it is, or has it morphed into a tool of political exploitation?

The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, was intended to ensure that newly freed slaves had the same rights as all Americans. The amendment is clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Simple enough, right?

But let’s break it down. The key phrase here is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” And this is where a lot of folks get it wrong. It wasn’t a blanket provision to allow anyone who sets foot on American soil to claim citizenship. In fact, the language was meant to exclude certain people, like the children of foreign diplomats and enemy combatants, who were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Before we dive into the modern debates, let’s take a quick trip back to the Dred Scott decision of 1857. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, could not be U.S. citizens. That decision, grounded in racism, was one of the key catalysts for the 14th Amendment’s passage, designed to ensure citizenship for all Americans—especially former slaves.

So, when people argue that the 14th Amendment is some kind of blanket approval for anyone born here to become a citizen, they’re missing the point. The original intent was to ensure that all people, regardless of race, were treated equally under the law. It wasn’t about opening the floodgates for illegal immigration.

In recent years, birthright citizenship has come under fire, with some arguing that it’s been abused by illegal immigrants who use it as a loophole to anchor their children to the U.S. While the law is clear about who qualifies for citizenship, the practice has become a contentious issue—especially when it comes to “anchor babies,” children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents who use their child’s citizenship to gain entry or stay in the country.

Here’s where we need to ask ourselves: What does it mean to be American? If we open the doors to automatic citizenship based on birthright alone, do we risk cheapening the value of citizenship itself? The law was never meant to create a system where people can exploit our borders for gain, and that’s something we need to take seriously as we reevaluate this policy.

It’s impossible to talk about birthright citizenship without bringing up President Trump’s attempt to address the issue through executive action. His administration aimed to curb the practice, arguing that the 14th Amendment didn’t automatically guarantee citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants.

While the debate is far from settled, one thing is clear: The issue of birthright citizenship goes beyond political theater. It’s about the future of this country, the integrity of our laws, and what it truly means to be an American.

It’s time we stop letting the debate over birthright citizenship devolve into sensationalized soundbites. The 14th Amendment was a monumental step toward equality, and it’s important that we honor its original intent. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a discussion about the modern implications of birthright citizenship and how we can ensure that our laws reflect the principles on which America was built.

The founding fathers didn’t draft the Constitution to be twisted and contorted to serve the political agendas of the moment. They created a blueprint for a nation, grounded in the belief that every citizen should be treated with equal respect. And that’s what we should focus on: equality, fairness, and making sure that we don’t lose sight of what truly makes America great.