Amid ongoing U.S. military operations in the Caribbean, President
Donald Trump called his Colombian counterpart, Gustavo Petro, “an
illegal drug leader” on Truth Social. He said Petro is “strongly
encouraging the massive production of drugs, in big and small fields,
all over Colombia. It has become the biggest business in Colombia, by
far, and Petro does nothing to stop it, despite large-scale payments and
subsidies from the U.S. … AS OF TODAY, THESE PAYMENTS, OR ANY OTHER
FORM OF PAYMENT, OR SUBSIDIES, WILL NO LONGER BE MADE TO COLOMBIA.”
Petro countered, referring to the president as a “king.”
“You really do think that Donald Trump came to power and retained
power without a free election?” “And you, right across the border, you
have somebody who canceled our election by all consensus, lost the last
Venezuelan election. Why don’t you direct your animus toward him if
you’re worried about kings?”
In contrast, in 2020, former President Joe Biden did not run a typical campaign.
He avoided the public, staying ensconced in his basement. He outsourced his campaign to Democrat politicos, donors, and a sycophantic media.
No
red state ever sought to remove Biden or former Vice President Kamala
Harris from their 2024 ballots. In contrast, 25 blue states attempted to
take Trump off their ballots.
In 2021, Biden’s Department of
Justice and FBI raided then-former President Trump’s home. They found
only 102 classified documents among some 14,000 seized, but
nevertheless, indicted him.
There was no such SWAT raid on Biden’s multiple repositories of illegally removed classified documents.
All
were in less secure places than at Mar-a-Lago. Biden removed them over
the course of three decades with impunity. At the time, unlike Trump, he
had no presidential prerogatives to declassify them.
Special
counsel Robert Hur found Biden culpable for the removal of these files
but declined to prosecute, claiming that he was too enfeebled to stand
trial.
In 2024, the same backroom donors and politicos who had
conspired to ensure Biden was the 2020 nominee now, against his wishes,
in coup-like fashion, removed him from his own reelection ticket.
Within
48 hours and without a delegate vote, they crowned Harris as the
presumed nominee. Queen Harris had not received a single delegate vote
in her disastrous 2020 primary run.
Trump, in 2020, did not sic his Department of Justice on his rival, Biden.
Nor during his presidency did his Department of Justice indict any past or future political opponent or ex-president.
In contrast, Kingly Biden’s White House helped coordinate 91
indictments of his past and future presidential rival, ex-President
Trump.
A mere three days after Trump announced his reelection bid
on November 15, 2022, Jack Smith was coincidentally appointed special
prosecutor of Trump.
That same day, strangely, Nathan Wade, the Georgia county prosecutor prosecuting Trump, met with Biden’s White House counsel.
On the same day, Matthew Colangelo, the former lead
prosecutor in Letitia James’ case against Trump, abruptly left his DOJ
post. He would soon go on to lead Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg’s
prosecution of Trump.
In
the 2020 election, Biden’s surrogates rounded up 51 “intelligence
authorities” to lie that Hunter Biden’s authentic and incriminating
laptop—then verified but suppressed by the FBI—was the work of the
Russians.
The Biden-era FBI also joined Twitter, Facebook, and
other social media to help smother any media story that might have
verified the authenticity of the laptop.
The Left portrays Trump’s constitutional right to pardon as the act of a king.
In
his nearly five years of governance, Trump has pardoned roughly 1,700,
including about 1,500 en masse for those convicted for the Jan. 6
protests.
That number so far is about 200 fewer pardons than during the Barack Obama administration.
Biden,
in a mere four years in office, pardoned roughly 4,245 people—the vast
majority through autopen signatures and without the full knowledge of
Biden himself.
Under the Obama and Biden administrations,
admitted left-wing government lawbreakers and White House allies were
never prosecuted for felonious behavior.
CIA head John Brennan admitted to lying twice to Congress.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper confessed to lying under oath to Congress as well.
FBI Director James Comey claimed ignorance or amnesia 245 times while under oath to a House oversight committee.
Interim FBI Director Andrew McCabe lied four times, often while under oath to government investigators.
A
federal judge in 2020 admonished John Bolton, Trump’s former national
security adviser and vehement critic, that he had endangered national
security by removing sensitive documents to write an anti-Trump
campaign-cycle memoir.
He also warned Bolton that he could be subject to civil and criminal penalties.
Not one of these political grandees was ever indicted by either the Obama or Biden DOJ.
Trump’s
White House advisors Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were arrested in
public for ignoring a congressional subpoena, convicted, and imprisoned.
In
contrast, top Democrat officials like former attorneys general Eric
Holder and Merrick Garland both ignored congressional subpoenas and
faced no such indictments.
Monarchs might order assassinations of
U.S. citizens abroad and surveil the phone records of Associated Press
reporters. Obama did both during his tenure.
Do kings monitor the phone records of their senatorial opponents?
Biden’s special counsel, Jack Smith, did just that.
Why then do the Democrats’ “No Kings” protests claim that Trump is a monarch?
Answer:
Through open and fair elections, the Left lost most of its former
political power in Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court.
I guess that means that President Donald Trump
is a monarch, a hereditary leader of some sort. But who really are the
kings and who are not the kings? And we could go through some
definitions of “monarch” and see to whom it applies the best.
Kings don’t have elections.
They are just appointed by birth or a privy council, I don’t know, some
kind of insider appoints this person or that person, if there’s not a
royal heir in succession. Or that might apply to an autocrat, is true.
Donald Trump ran for election three times. He won twice. The last
time he won the popular vote, the Electoral College, he won all of his
swing states. First Republican to win the popular vote since 2004. He
had 70/30, 60/40 majorities on all of the issues.
Joe Biden, in 2020, had lost the first three caucuses or primaries.
He was going nowhere. And then a group of insiders, politicos, donors,
the media panicked because they knew that to nominate a Elizabeth
Warren, a Pete Buttigieg, especially a Bernie Sanders, would destroy the
Democratic ticket.
seattle lenin statue
So, they cooked up this idea that Joe Biden
from Scranton—even though they knew he was already cognitively
challenged—could be a veneer, a wax effigy. And then they did not allow
him to campaign because we know what happens when he campaigns, as we
saw in 2024.
He sat in the basement under the pretext of COVID-19. He outsourced
his campaign like a royal monarch to his underlings in the media. They
got him elected. And then he, more or less, abdicated while on the job
and let the hard Left, in this quid pro quo arrangement, run the
country. I should say, run the country into the ground by opening the
border, 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens, a 9% inflation rate,
humiliation in Afghanistan, etc., etc.
Donald Trump began, went transparently and openly out to the voters to be elected.
We also know that monarchs conduct lawfare. That is, they use their
judges to go after political enemies. Donald Trump never went after his
opponent, Hillary Clinton, even though she had a lot of criminal
exposure with her email scandal.
He never went after former President Barack Obama.
No FBI raided the Obama home to look for classified documents, even
though he had a well-publicized disagreement with the federal archivist
about which documents he should take or hold. He never went after him.
He never went after Joe Biden. He hasn’t gone after Joe Biden today.
In contrast, Donald Trump had 91 indictments filed by federal, local, and state prosecutors in cahoots.
We know that on Nov. 15, when he announced his campaign, a mere three
days later, Jack Smith, a federal prosecutor, went after him on the
Mar-a-Lago raid and also on Jan. 6.
We know that that same day that Smith was appointed, suddenly, Nathan
Wade from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ Georgia
prosecution turned up talking to the Biden White House counsel. We know
that same day, the third-ranking Justice Department attorney left, he
came from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ prosecution of Trump,
but he’d left that day, resigned from his prestigious position to go to
work for whom? Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
That’s what monarchs do.
We know that monarchs also snoop. They go after their enemies with,
you know, espionage. That’s sort of like Barack Obama. He surveilled the
phone records of AP journalists. His CIA director surveilled and lied
about it—John Brennan—the staff computers of senators.
We know that Joe Biden’s special counsel, Jack Smith, spied on eight
senators’ phone records. He had the data of all of their phones—how long
they talked to someone, when it was, to whom they did.
Donald Trump hasn’t done that. He hasn’t gotten 51 intelligence
authorities to lie that a laptop was authentic. He didn’t order the FBI
to work with Facebook or the old Twitter to suppress the news. That’s
what the Biden administration did.
So, what is this “No Kings” about? They should be talking about the
Obama and Biden administration. Kings ignore subpoenas. They just say,
“The law doesn’t apply to me.” So, that’s what Eric Holder, the attorney
general and so-called wingman of the Obama administration, did.
He got a subpoena to talk to Congress and bring evidence about the
Fast and Furious scandal. And what did he do? He said: I’m not going to
obey a congressional subpoena.
Attorney General Merrick Garland got one to come in and testify. He said: I don’t obey congressional subpoenas.
Two high-ranking Trump supporters—not Cabinet members, but advisers
in the White House for a long time, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, got
congressional subpoenas about Jan. 6. And they said: This is overtly
political. I’m not going to show up—in Eric Holder style or Merrick
Garland style. And what happened to them? They were arrested, they were
indicted, they were convicted, and they were imprisoned. That’s what
kings do.
Kings don’t obey parliaments, to the extent they have them. If they
disagree with something, they shut them down. They just cease to exist.
As we’re speaking, the government is shut down. And why is it shut
down? Because the Democrats lost the 2024 election. They have no power
in the House and they have no power in the Senate. All they have is a
minority filibuster, veto on the Senate. And they decided, because they
did not get their way, to shut down the entire federal government. It
wasn’t Donald Trump that shut it down. It was the kingly act of the
Left.
And finally, monarchs nullify existing law when they don’t like it. They just say, “You know what? I’m not gonna follow it.”
Donald Trump has been the subject of ridiculous lower district
federal judge ritz. The whole purpose of them is to delay and hamper his
executive orders.
Everybody knows that the orders are legal, that they are either
overturned at the next circuit court appellate level or by the Supreme
Court. Nonetheless, these left-wing federal judges become iconic by
stopping Donald Trump. Does he obey them? Yes. Does California Gov.
Newsom or Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, or Mayor Brandon Johnson in
Chicago, or Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass—do they obey federal law? No.
In kingly, queenly fashion, they said: Federal law does not apply to us
on matters of immigration. We will oppose Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. We will not cooperate with ICE.
In the case of Mayor Johnson, we will not have law enforcement come
to their aid when they’re in danger. In the case of Portland, if thugs
are attacking ICE and they wanna protect themselves and arrest these
people, then they flee to the other side of the street and hide behind
local police.
In other words, in neo-Confederate style, the Left, maybe like kings,
are nullifying federal law. They say that Article VI of the
Constitution that specifies the enforcement of federal law by federal
enforcement shall take authority over, shall enjoy authority over state,
local, and county laws in matters of federal jurisdiction.
In other words, if you have a federal law about immigration and you
want to get a criminal or someone who’s facing a deportation order, it
doesn’t matter what the city of Los Angeles or the county of Los Angeles
or the state of California say. A federal law enforcement officer has
the right to arrest somebody, if it’s legal and he’s in violation of
either immigration law or federal codes. And they are. And yet, in
nullification, neo-Confederate fashion, that law is being nullified,
ignored, violated.
In other words, if you’re gonna have a “No Kings” protest and argue
that the current president is a monarch, a king, a dictator, an
autocrat, then you better come with evidence.
But presidents hold elections. They stand for reelection. They follow
federal law. They follow court orders. They don’t snoop on people. They
follow congressional subpoenas. And they don’t conduct lawfare.
For those on the left who are worried about kings taking over the country or violating our freedom, look in the mirror.
The government has now been shut down for the longest time in our
249th history of the republic, except on one earlier occasion. So, who’s
responsible? How’s it gonna end? What’s gonna happen?
Ostensibly, government shutdowns occur when the out party has lost power in the House and the Senate, or at least they can’t push through an agenda.
So, they feel that the only leverage they have, usually when they’ve
lost the presidency and control of the Congress, is to not approve. And
basically, that is not approve of any bills that are going on
filibusters. In this case, the Republicans do not have 60 votes in the
Senate to override their refusal to vote on the budget, so to speak.
Why are they doing this? Why are the Democrats shutting down the government when we have a history of these shutdowns?
And if you go back and look at them, usually one thing happens. That
is, initially, the party that’s in the minority and has shut down the
government says, “Well, they won’t speak to us,” or “They won’t, they
don’t, wanna negotiate,” or “They’re spending too much money and this is
the only recourse we have.”
And that is a believable message, a persuasive message for a few
days, but then certain things kick in, such as: I didn’t get my Social
Security check. I didn’t get my paycheck. The air traffic control system
is slowing my flights down. And the system slowly starts to grind down.
And at that magic point, people say, “Well, wait a minute. We had an
election. You guys, whether Republicans or Democrats, lost, and now
you’re kind of poor losers and you’re saying you’re losing in chess so
you wanna overthrow the board and say, ‘I’m gonna shut it all down.’”
And then public opinion starts to go against the people who shut down.
I think we’re at that point now where the Democrats are seeing a
diminishing return on their investment of shutting the government down.
Why did they do this? The historian Thucydides said, for most
disagreements, there is the pretext, the prophasis, and then there’s the
real cause, the aitia.
They say that they’re shutting the government down because when they passed the Obamacare
program, the Affordable Care Act—which, remember, was supposed to
reduce everybody’s health care. And you know, there’s only about 25
million people now who are in need of these subsidies on Obamacare. Most
people still get their private insurance or they’re on Medicare or
they’re on Medicaid.
But when this program did not prove to be affordable, as everybody
predicted it wouldn’t, when you rang a lot of people into the system
that can’t pay for it, and you put these rules and regulations on the
medical profession, something has to give. And that give was cost.
So, then the Democrats came back and said, “We need subsidies.” And
the Republicans said, “Well, you said it was going to be cheaper. Why
would you need government multibillion, hundreds of billion-dollar
subsidies?” And so, they said, “We’ll put a time limit on it.” Well,
that time limit expired or will expire.
And they knew that. They signed on to get us this far into the year by agreeing not to shut down.
So now they say the official reason is the Republicans are not going
to extend a subsidy for the affordable health care. The Republicans
said, “It should be called the nonaffordable health care. We told you it
wouldn’t work. Why do this? Let’s rewrite the whole thing or get—”
So, that’s the pretext, but there’s two other reasons. One, in the
general chaos of things, they think that it hurts the end party, in
particular, President Donald Trump.
In other words, they look at Trump and they say he’s reduced crime.
There is no such thing as illegal immigration anymore. He’s addressing
illegal aliens that are criminals, 500,000. He’s pursuing them. He’s
deported many, many thousands of criminals. There’s been seven or eight
ceasefires abroad. He may bring peace to the Middle East. He’s restored
the military’s shortfall recruitment. There’s 50,000. So, we don’t
really have an answer. But if we create chaos, if we fill the streets
full of protesters, if we get violent, if we make everybody upset and
not calm, and we think we’re gonna go into the public, the voter will go
into a fetal position, say, “Make it all go away.”
In other words: Shut down the government, cause general turmoil, maybe even lead us to a recession, and they will blame Trump.
“Trump did it. Trump did it. Trump did it.”
That’s one reason.
The other real reason that they’re not telling us is that the
Democratic Party is in a doom loop. In other words, on all of these main
issues—defund the police, open borders, illegal immigration, the trans
sports issue, what we saw abroad, pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas versus
Israel—they’re on the losing side, and they do not have a charismatic
President Bill Clinton or President Barack Obama to carry them through
in a nationwide referendum on these unpopular votes.
So, they don’t have the leadership and they don’t have the votes. And
so, they’re looking for something to do, as I said, to cause chaos.
But more importantly, they have a reason why they don’t have
charismatic leaders, and they have a reason why they’re unpopular. And
that is the party has passed the establishment by. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer,
all of ’em are ossified, calcified dinosaurs. And a young group of
Mamdanis are running on issues that, while they may be popular in a
particular jurisdiction or an East Coast liberal city, they have no
residents nationwide.
And they will be running for office in the midterms. They’re gonna be
challenging incumbents like Chuck Schumer. And they can win in this
neosocialist, DEI, far left, Green New Deal constituency.
But the old guard is saying: They will lose in a general election,
just like McGovern did, and they will take us down for 20 years. So now,
what we have to do is we have to give in a little bit because they’re
saying we’re old fuddy-duddies and letting Trump, you know, go to the
races. He’s successful. Can’t they stop him? We’ll stop him. So now,
we’re going to shut down the government so they can tell the base,
“We’re just as radical as you are.”
And who’s the loser in the final analysis? The American people
because the Democratic Party, who shut the government down, is basically
saying: We are Samson and we’ve got a hand around each pillar and we’re
gonna pull down the whole thing on top of you.
Here in California—which might be a model for other states as well—Gov. Gavin Newsom
has now approved a formal commission to administer reparations to black
Californians. And they’re trying not to use the word reparations since
it has such a bad connotation. But it’s a bad idea in so many ways.
Remember, when California was admitted to the Union, it came in as a
free state. It had no prior record of being a slave state. It has never
been a slave state. It has no historical baggage as, perhaps, the former
Confederacies. So, there’s no argument that people who happen to be in
California are owed anything from it, by the state, of any race.
The second thing is we don’t know how many black Americans that are
residents of California could trace their lineage back to California. In
other words, do we really believe that most of the African Americans in
California, who came after World War I and during World War II, have descendants that were suffering the fallout from slavery in California? It’s really absurd.
The third thing to remember is the black population of California is
about 5.4% of the 41 million people. Who are going to be paying the
reparations? The so-called white oppressor, victimizer class is only
42%. It is a minority. And many of them can trace their lineage back to
the Oklahoma diaspora of the 1930s and ’40s, when they arrived here
completely destitute.
And then, in addition, we have about 15% to 16% Asian. Some of them
came from horrendous conditions in Vietnam. Some of them have families
that were Japanese, have received money from the government as direct
compensation for property they lost during World War II during the
relocations. Some of them can argue that they were oppressed from the
19th century. Leland Stanford Jr., the president of the Southern Union
Pacific Railroad, used Chinese labors in a very exploitive manner.
The point is that each particular minority group will then argue that
they have claims on—whom? Who is going to be the victimizer class when
the so-called white population is the minority?
Latinos are the majority population. They’re 45%. Are we going to ask
people who migrated from Mexico, for the most part, to pay their tax
dollars to African Americans who were not living here during slavery?
Who is black in a multiracial, intermarried culture? Are we going to
go back to the Elizabeth Warren rule? Do we need DNA badges? Are we
gonna use the old Confederate measure of one-sixteenth? Sixteen percent
to 17% of the California population identify as multiracial. How do we
know who is white, who is Hispanic, who is black? It’s very hard to
adjudicate that.
More importantly, we have had repertory programs. And remember, we
are 157 years from the 14th Amendment that guaranteed citizenship for
former slaves. We’re 60 years from the EOP, affirmative action and sort
of reparations program, of the Great Society that cost, in some
computations, about $20 trillion of transfers. And that can include
everything from special preferences on the basis of race for hiring,
disproportionate impact in admissions to college, equal opportunity
programs for small business, etc., etc.
So, there has been reparations, and many of them were race-based.
The final two considerations, very quickly, is California
really had a $20 billion deficit. Gavin Newsom moved the money around
and got by the mandatory requirement that California cannot borrow. But
it basically cooked the books. It is in a perennial $20-$30 billion
deficit crisis each year. This is a state that has the highest income
taxes, the highest gas taxes, and among the highest property, not rates,
but actual taxes, given valuations of homes, as well as high sales taxes.
So, what would be the answer? If you really do want to address
inordinate crime rates among the black communities—72% of children are
born to one family, a one-parent family; there’s an all-time high
illegitimacy rate—then why not work with the black community leaders and
suggest that the disintegration of the black family, the two-parent
household, is primarily the cause, statistically, why blacks are not
achieving the same economic status as, let’s say, Indian Americans or
other Asian Americans, Arab Americans, or white Americans?
And that can be addressed. If you’re on the left, you can talk about
structural racism. And if you’re on the right, you can say the Great
Society programs incentivized the destruction of the black family.
Whatever the exegesis is, it’s a much better conversation to have
than just, as in the past, to hand out billions of dollars to a group,
who we don’t know, exactly, who composes it, we don’t know how one
qualifies, we don’t know how long they can trace residency in California
or if it even matters. And we know that California has had no history
of slavery.
The short answer to why both the Biden and Obama administrations
failed to achieve peace in the Middle East is that they took actions
opposite to President Donald Trump’s current efforts, which have led to a ceasefire.
First, consider Iran.
Iran was flush with cash, on a trajectory toward a nuclear weapon,
and arming Israel’s “ring of fire” enemies: Hamas, Hezbollah, and the
Houthis.
The radical Islamic world of the Middle East was convinced that Israel would be doomed eventually.
Yet, both Democrat administrations let Iran profit from oil sales.
They talked of delaying, but not ending, Iran’s nuclear program. And they feared that Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis were indomitable terrorist threats.
Thus, the disruptors of peace were appeased rather than deterred.
Two, both former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden pressured
Israel in general and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in
particular to make constant concessions.
But neither offered any plan for how Israel was to survive when Iran
sought its destruction, and Tehran’s terrorist triad aimed to bombard it
with missiles, rockets, and drones.
Worse, once the larger Middle East saw Democrat presidents appeasing
Iran and its terrorist appendages, they concluded it was unsafe to take
risks by allying with a delusional United States.
Three, both Obama and Biden despised and personally insulted
Netanyahu, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and the Saudi royal
family.
Biden called Saudi Arabia a “pariah state”—at least until he needed
it to pump more oil to lower gas prices before the 2022 midterms.
Both presidents sought to isolate Sisi and remove him from power.
Obama had his team leak insults to Netanyahu, most infamously the “chicken sh–” smear.
Middle Easterners have long memories.
Obama never would have thought up the Abraham Accords. Biden foolishly derailed and then pathetically tried to resurrect them.
Neither the Gulf monarchies, Egypt, nor any conservative government
in Israel had any incentive to deal with Obama and Biden, whom they
despised.
Yet the more Trump respected and engaged with the Gulf sheikhs, Sisi,
and Netanyahu, the more their collective fortunes—and his influence
over their nations—increased.
Four, the Obama and Biden administrations were reluctant to use force to curb terrorism in the Middle East.
Neither would ever have taken out Iranian general Qassem Soleimani
and the ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, destroyed ISIS, obliterated
much of Russia’s Wagner group, or hit the Houthis hard.
The result was that neither the Israelis nor the Arabs trusted Obama
and Biden. So, they were careful not to take risks, fearing the U.S.
would leave them hanging.
Five, on the global stage, both Democrat administrations had radiated
a general sense of appeasement and indecision that empowered enemies
and scared off friends.
The Middle East remembered the 2011 Libyan bombing misadventure and
John Kerry’s pathetic 2013 courting of Russian help in the Middle East.
It recalled the 2014 Russian takeover of Crimea and Donbas, the 2016
appeasement of Iran to cut a nuclear deal, and the 2021 Chinese dressing
down of Biden diplomats in Anchorage.
It was shocked by the 2021 humiliating skedaddle from Afghanistan, the 2022 Russian assault on Kyiv, and the 2023 Chinese balloon fiasco.
The Middle East concluded that America was in managed decline. It
could not or would not defend its own interests, much less those of its
expendable friends.
Six, Obama—and especially Biden—were constrained by their domestic bases in a way Trump was not.
The pro-Hamas, anti-Israel Left deterred Democrat presidents from taking risks. In contrast, Trump withstood MAGA fury about bombing Iran or allowing Netanyahu to destroy most of Hamas.
Seven, the Democrats talked diplomatese. They looked down on
mercantilism—and so never connected with either the Arabs or Israelis.
Trump equated a peace deal with prosperity. He promised that almost all interests would profit mutually.
For negotiations, he preferred businessmen—himself, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff—to diplomats.
It turned out that the Arabs and Israelis did as well.
Eight, Obama and Biden were infamous for their empty threats. Few ever believed Obama’s 2012 “redlines” issued to Syria on weapons of mass destruction.
No one took seriously Biden’s 2022 threat of “don’t” when Russia was on the verge of invading Ukraine.
In contrast, Trump’s threats were all too real.
Nine, past American administrations were frustrated with a
duplicitous Qatar. And so they appeased it. Trump offered both carrots
and sticks. After Israel bombed Qatar, the regime sought Trump’s
support, shaken and ready to help.
Ten, the Obama and Biden teams—Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Susan
Rice, Leon Panetta, Jake Sullivan, Antony Blinken, and Lloyd Austin—were
force multipliers of their presidents’ naivete and incompetence.
By contrast, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gens. Erik Kurilla and Dan Caine,
Witkoff, and Kushner shaped, shared, and empowered Trump’s agenda.
I predict. The Europeans are very volatile. We forget about that.
They have no history of a multiracial society like we do, and they’re
not capitalist countries anymore, so they don’t have fluidity of class.
So, when you bring in people who are antithetical in terms of values,
religion from a different region, and they’re not European-looking,
they have all these things that are challenges that need to be
assimilated, and they can’t or won’t do it. And the people coming in
have no desire to do it.
And it’s a socialist country that assuages their guilt by giving
entitlements that they cannot afford and they don’t have a defense
budget because they can’t afford it. And they’ve developed this strange
ethos that young men and young women should not marry, buy homes, or
they can’t buy a home and have children.
But once they change, they will go full Japanese. Japanese don’t
allow immigrants to come in and ever be Japanese, for most cases, can’t
be a Japanese citizen.
I think everybody, you know, they sold us this idea that the old
wisdom of the United States is diversity, historically, doesn’t work and
we have to work at it because we are, say, in 1960, we were 88% white,
2% or 3% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and probably 10% black. And then former
Sen. Ted Kennedy came up with the idea of, you know, so open the
borders, etc. So now it’s about 68% white, I don’t know, 10% Asian, 10%
Hispanic, 12% black. I don’t know if that adds up. And that is a
challenge for everybody on the diverse side.
Look at the Balkans. Look at Rwanda. Look at—it doesn’t work,
usually, in history. Look at India. It doesn’t work—Brazil. But it works
here and it works here only to the extent that people, all
people—white, brown, black, Asian—say that their color or their race is
incidental to being an American, being an American is essential. But
Europe has never really done that.
And so, then when they bring in people of different religions and
colors, they patronize them. And then these people think they’re gonna
be treated separately, i.e., better, they’re not gonna be subject to the
full extent of the law, or they’re gonna get more because these wealthy
but drone-like Europeans, Eloi, H.G. Wells’ Eloi, they feel guilty and
they’re gonna give them stuff.
Well, when they reach a breaking point, they will act and it won’t be
like what we act like, they will deport people and it won’t be pretty.
But it was an insane policy. So, what I would say to people is: I like
diversity. I like diversity in food. I like diversity in music. I like
diversity in people. But I don’t like diversity in the Constitution.
I do not want to live under the Mexican Constitution. I do not wanna
live under the Guatemalan ethos about women. I do not want to live under
South Africa’s
idea of race now, either apartheid then or what they have now. I don’t
wanna live on any of these political systems or these value systems.
I just want, if immigrants want to come here, I want them to enrich
us with their fashion, their food, their music, their literature, their
art, and then become American and share the same ethos.
So, when I walk outside my street, I don’t see somebody, as I saw
three weeks ago, open the car door and throw out two dogs, and then when
I yelled at him, tell me in Spanish to blank-blank and take off.
I don’t like to do what I did this morning and walk around and see a
new—that was last night, excuse me—a new dryer thrown. And then when I
look in the dryer, there’s a bunch of garbage with Spanish-language
literature. I don’t like that. That’s what they do in Mexico. I don’t want them to do that here.
There’s a very controversial ballot measure here in California,
Prop 50. It involves redistricting congressional districts in a special
ballot mandate that would empower Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration to
draw up new congressional districts.
And the gist of it is that the Democrats feel that in the next
midterms, they want to get at least five or six more congressional
Democratic seats. They say it’s in reaction to what Texas has done.
Texas has redistricted and it is going to pick up more Republican seats
than it had before. Gavin Newsom, who was running for president in 2028, has thrust himself into the controversy and said: I will do what Texas did.
But there’s a problem. If you look at all the gerrymandered districts
in all 50 states and you compare them with the national
vote—contemporary national vote—of Democrat, Republican, they’re already
gerrymandered in favor of Democrats.
Here in California, to take the most relevant example that involves
Prop 50, we have 52 congressional districts—52. Currently, there are
only nine Republicans out of that 52. That represents about 17% of the
congressional district. However, in most statewide and national
elections, Republicans usually poll about 40%.
So, in other words, California is 23% underrepresented in its
congressional districts, in terms of Republican representatives, right
now.
How did that happen? That happened because about a decade ago, Arnold
Schwarzenegger, who ran as a conservative and metamorphosed into a
centrist or moderate or maybe left-center in his last years in office,
created what he said was a nonpartisan redistricting commission. But
when you actually looked at the people on that commission, they were
either Left or center-left, and they gerrymandered California under the
guise of a nonpartisan or bipartisan commission that took politics,
supposedly, out of the equation.
So, what am I saying? We’re going way beyond nonpartisanship. That
wasn’t nonpartisan. We’re going into extremism that is going to end up
with just four or five Republican Congress representatives out of 52
seats. And it’s even worse than that when you look at the map. It makes
jigsaw puzzles look proportional. They’re stretching and pulling these
districts well beyond any semblance to geographical reality.
And the point is, they want to combine Republicans
into about five districts. And that way they would free up moderates
and independents and Democrats and create the other 47 districts that
would be sure winners for the Left. And in these five districts, these
nine existing Republicans would be forced to run against each other. So,
they would destroy half of the incumbents, and some of them serve on,
you know, very important committees in Washington, they have seniority.
Gavin Newsom, moreover, when he’s been asked about that, he says that
he wants to punch these people. I guess he was referring to Republicans
in general or the Texas Republicans in particular. He wants to “punch
them in the mouth.” He said he wants to punch President Donald Trump in the mouth.
The rhetoric is heating up, but will Proposition 50 pass in a state that is 60%, in most elections, voting toward the Left
or for Democrats? It probably will. And we in California, who are on
the conservative side, will go from 17% representation—not 40%, which
reflects our actual numbers, but 17%—now to about 9% after Proposition
50 passes.
So, I would urge everyone to take a very good look in California at
this proposition. And whatever your political affiliation is, you can
see that this is a desperate attempt to destroy a once idealistic but
not very good bipartisan commission, but far better than turning over
redistricting to Gavin Newsom and hardcore leftists in the California
Legislature.
For years, those who objected to trans ideology and radical trans
activism warned that the sudden explosion of "trans identifying" kids
was really a social contagion. Being "trans" was the latest political
and social fad -- often pushed on kids by celebrities, politicians, and
educators -- and many of them were not actually suffering from gender
dysphoria.
Advertisement
The Left insisted we were just being bigots and that we were doing
harm to youth by denying their "trans identities" and "true selves."
They told us -- and many concerned parents -- that "trans" kids would
commit suicide if we didn't get them dangerous puberty blockers,
cross-sex hormones, and "gender affirming" surgery that left kids
mutilated, sexually dysfunctional, and sterile.
Turns out, we were right all along. New data show that trans identification among young people is in a free fall:
Meanwhile, gay and lesbian identities has remained steady while heterosexuality has increased.
Among
incoming freshmen, the rate of "trans and queer" students was less than
the senior class, an inverse of just a few short years ago.
t's very likely that the non-conformity will continue to fall.
The big question is: why? Why the sudden reversal?
It's not from a shift to religion or conservatism.
There are some answers in our improved mental health care.
A big factor was the pandemic.
Which
makes sense. People were stuck at home, isolated from seeing loved ones
in person, and resorted to being perpetually online in the name of
"safety."
This is just another bit of evidence that the COVID lockdowns did far more harm than good.
Letting people work and socialize like normal helps improve mental health. Imagine that.
It was always a social contagion.
The
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which conducts a
large annual survey of US undergraduates, polled over 60,000 students
in 2025.
My analysis of the raw data shows that in that year, just 3.6% of
respondents identified as a gender other than male or female. By
comparison, the figure was 5.2% in 2024 and 6.8% in both 2022 and 2023.
In other words, the share of trans-identified students has effectively
halved in just two years.
This trend is especially marked in elite
institutions. Andover Phillips Academy in suburban Boston surveys over
three-quarters of its students annually. In 2023,
9.2% identified as neither male nor female. This year, that number has
crashed to just 3%. A similar story emerges at Brown University: 5% of
students identified as non-binary in 2022 and 2023, but by 2025 that share had dropped to 2.6%.
Some wondered if the graph instead showed a decline in nonbinary identification.
And Kaufmann responded:
The
trans agenda is extremely homophobic, because it requires often gays
and lesbians who don't adhere to rigid gender stereotypes to change
their bodies in order to conform to those stereotypes. It's the ultimate
form of conversion therapy, which is something the Left hates.
So
we can take this study with a small grain of salt, depending on how
trans individuals answered the question. That being said, it's a glimmer
of hope.
But the next stages of this are going to be even harder.
Society will have to deal with the fallout of "transitioning" perfectly
healthy young men and women and the irreversible harm done to their
bodies.
Shortly after President Trump declared the two-year-long war between Israel
and Hamas over, Hamas terrorists in Gaza took to executing their
political opponents in public squares, with several of the videos
circulating on social media.
Advertisement
An Israeli military official told Fox News Digital
that the videos show "Hamas’s deliberate attempt to show the killing
publicly and reestablish its rule by terrorizing civilians."
Gazans
themselves have described terrorist fighters attempting to reassert
their control over the Gaza Strip, but some remain positive that the
ceasefire and international coordination might allow them to make real
change.
Mukhaimar Abu Saada, a political analyst from Gaza, said
that disarming Hamas, a step required in President Trump's peace plan,
will be extremely difficult to achieve. Especially after a Hamas
spokesperson declared on Friday, and reiterated again on Monday, that
the group would never lay down its weapons.
"This won’t happen
quickly," Saada said. "We’re talking about an ideological organization.
Even last night, people were killed in clashes between Hamas and local
militias. It’s not a rosy road."
Saada further stated that Hamas
has given collaborators with Israel until October 19th to turn
themselves in and seek amnesty from Hamas, a likely death sentence for
any who tries.
"They’re still strong," he said. "Part of the reason they didn’t
fight harder in the last days is that they saved some men and weapons
for the day after. I still see Hamas police in the streets of Gaza.
Trump said they lost thousands, but they’re still there, able to control
the streets once Israel redeploys."
A Gazan who asked to remain
anonymous said that despite the declarations from world leaders, "You
cannot say the war is finished. We have to wait a few weeks to see what
happens. There are gangs in Gaza now; Hamas is trying to fight them. If
they don’t unify, another war could start."
"Hamas is not strong
like before. Those who remain are mostly police — not the real Hamas
people who believe in their extremist jihadist ideology. We have to
watch what happens next and see if they rebuild," he continued.
He
argued that the very survival of Hamas depended on whether they would
take the peace deal. But he described the situation as strange, noting
that "It’s not a real deal yet. We need someone from Hamas to explain
what they agreed to, because we need to think about our future."
Another Gazan voiced similar concerns about the uncertainty for the future.
"No
one knows what is happening — who will rule, what will happen with
Hamas, and if the war is truly over. We hope for a better future. I just
want me and my family to live without targeting, without bloodshed," he
said. "People just want the blood to stop. They want to stop losing
their relatives and friends … It’s in their hands now — if they will
allow Hamas to continue or finally rise up. But nothing is clear."
Saada said that whatever happens, Hamaw must be disarmed.
"The
real question is who will hold those weapons," he said. "The
Palestinian Authority or the so-called ‘security stabilization force’
that’s supposed to deploy next. It’s definitely going to happen, but we
have to wait for the second phase of the negotiations."
Editor's Note:Donald
Trump is America's Peace Time President. Support and follow Townhall's
latest reporting on the president's historic trip to the Middle East.
There have been some interesting developments coming after
The New York Times published a report seemingly aimed at attacking the
Justice Department’s criminal indictment against New York Attorney
General Letitia James.
The piece
centered on residents of a home James allegedly listed as a primary
residence in Norfolk, Virginia, to obtain better loan conditions. The
attorney general purchased the home for her grandniece, Nakia Thompson,
who was looking for “tranquility” after experiencing tumultuous times in
other cities. “Five years ago, the door of a modest yellow house on a
quiet stretch of avenue in Norfolk, Va., swung open to admit a young
family looking for a peaceful life after years of turbulence in several
cities,” The Times reported.
The Justice Department
alleges that the home is an investment property, not a primary
residence. The controversy over the case has thrust her tenants into the
spotlight.
James only reported rental income from the
home once, according to The Times. She reported making between $1,000 to
$5,000 from it. The report further noted that James would sometimes
visit the home for an “extended stay.”
However, there appears to be more to the story, according to a report from The Daily Mail.
The outlet reported that Nakia Thompson is listed as an “absconder”
from probation in North Carolina. The authorities described her as a
“fugitive.”
Keith Acree, communications director for
the North Carolina Department of Corrections, told the Daily Mail that
Thompson “was sentenced to probation for misdemeanor convictions for
assault and battery and trespassing, and has willfully avoided probation
supervision.”
Prosecutors allege that James’ mortgage
fraud enabled her to avoid a 0.815 percent higher loan rate, which
meant she saved nearly $18,000 and pocketed about $3,000.
Left-wing
media outlets have pounced on James’ situation, accusing the Trump
administration of weaponizing the government against President Donald
Trump’s political opponents. James spearheaded the effort to prosecute
Trump for misrepresenting the value of his assets to secure favorable
loan conditions. Now, she is facing prosecution for the same conduct.
Yet,
none of these outlets had a problem with James and other Democratic
officials weaponizing the government against Trump during the 2024
campaign season. In fact, they actively supported it, not because they
were concerned about justice, but because they wanted to ensure that
Democrats remained in the White House.
Editor’s Note: The
Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first,
Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for
healthcare for illegals. They own this.
There’s been a lot of news lately about the efforts of the Border Patrol and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
ICE, their efforts to round up illegal aliens. And they are
prioritizing two groups: those who have criminal records and those who
have already been processed for deportation and have evaded
apprehension.
But in many cities, in blue states, or at least in blue cities, there
is organized resistance. Sometimes it’s very violent by Antifa.
Sometimes it’s sponsored or encouraged by the Democratic Party: Gavin Newsom
in California, our governor, or Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles,
openly calling for resistance, or Gov. JB Pritzker of Chicago.
What’s really disturbing is we’re starting to see a new—I would call
it—neo-Confederate successionist ideology in these cities. In these blue
cities, the officials who run them, the mayors or the police chiefs,
believe they are a law unto themselves. In other words, within the
confines of Chicago or within the confines of Portland, they can nullify
all federal laws, just in the way that South Carolina said it could on
the eve of the Civil War: The Union does not apply to us. We are morally
superior.
I wanna remind everybody how that works out in reality. If you are an
ICE agent and you’re in an ICE detention center, you may not be able to
get in or out of work or you can’t fulfill your duties because there is
a siege on of Antifa semi-terrorists and their sympathizers that
surround you. And the Oregon police will not help you. In fact, in a
recent demonstration, a reporter was arrested while reporting on the
inaction of the Oregon police and the violence of the protesters.
If you look at a recent suburb in Chicago,
resisters to ICE actually did a blockade. They had 10 or so cars and
they, by design, ambushed an ICE patrol and stopped the agents from
being able to go forward or backward in their vehicles. One of them was
armed with an automatic weapon. When ICE called for the Chicago police
to lend assistance, because they were an extremist, the Chicago police
did not.
Gov. Pritzker sort of, basically, said that ICE lies. And so, we
don’t really pay any attention to them. Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago
didn’t help.
In other words, we’re starting to see now organized resistance, not
on the street by thugs and terrorists and resisters, but we’re starting
to see, in neo-Confederate fashion, elected officials.
And the premise that they’re using is, again: We are a law unto ourselves.
I would like to remind them of two things: Not all Americans are
Portlanders or Chicagoans. But everybody that’s a citizen in Chicago and
everybody who is a citizen in Portland is, first and foremost, a U.S.
citizen. And therefore, subject to the laws, the federal laws of the
government. First and foremost.
And what these elected officials are doing and what law enforcement
is doing, at the municipal level, is no different than what caused the
Civil War.
They are actively encouraging resistance, and nearly armed resistance
because these officers are law enforcement, to federal agents who are
trying to dutifully fulfill their constitutional mandates to protect the
border and ensure that people who come across do so legally. They’re
just fulfilling the law—federal immigration law. And yet they’re being resisted by—I guess you would call it—neo-Confederates.
Where is this going to lead if it’s not stopped now by mayors and
governors in these blue jurisdictions? What’s on the horizon is not just
blockading ICE cars and not just not rendering assistance. As it gets
more and more extreme, you will start to see blue mayors and city
officials actually use their powers within their jurisdictions to stop,
physically stop, ICE. And when we get to that point, we’re really on the
verge of civil insurrection and we’re back to something like 1861.
I’d like to end with an example for our blue city mayors, especially
in Portland and Chicago. In 1963, George Wallace said: Alabama is a
world to itself. It has unique customs and traditions and history that
the federal government does not understand. So, the federal government
cannot come into our state and tell us that we have to give civil rights
protections to African Americans who want to attend the University of
Alabama. So I, Gov. Wallace, will stand in the door and force people who
are black out.
And what happened? The Kennedy administration said: No, this isn’t
1861, Gov. Wallace. I’m sorry. You do not have the right—the right,
moral or actual—to refuse a federal mandate. And all men are created
equal, and we’re gonna enforce that.
And so, what President John F. Kennedy did, and Bobby Kennedy as
attorney general, they federalized the Alabama National Guard and they
brought in U.S. troops, and they forced George Wallace to step aside and
to accept people according to the laws of the United States of America.
So, I would like to remind the Left,
you’re on the side of George Wallace, resisting federal law. And ICE,
that you despise, is on the right side of history, trying to enforce
laws that have been broken for the protection of all citizens, all
citizens in this United States, including those in Chicago and including
those in Portland who are having their civil rights endangered if they
live next to an ICE facility or if they’re an ICE agent in general. They
are endangered. And the federal government has a right to protect them.
And so, I would urge you all to stop what you’re doing and get back to the right side of history.
I know I’ve talked to you before about the decision to drop the
atomic bomb in August of 1945 to end World War II in the Pacific. And
we’ve talked about the revisionists that have appeared, such as Darryl
Cooper and David Collum on Tucker Carlson’s
show. We’ve talked about, I think, a misreading of what I said in a
text and she heard, Diana West, who wanted an apology—which I can’t give
because she was mistaken.
But I want to revisit something that I think is happening. And it’s
on our side of the conservative—this conservative sphere and atmosphere.
And that is, people are starting, at this critical time, to look back
at World War II and to reinterpret it.
And usually, we saw that on the left, that said, you know, we were
racist, we were colonialists, we were furthering our selfish ends, we
didn’t have to do this, we didn’t have to do that. For the Left, World
War II is, essentially, the Japanese internment and the dropping of
atomic bombs.
So, I want to look at just three or four key elements of World War II
that have come up in the news and people have questioned, I think,
quite ahistorically, without sufficient background.
The first is we kind of forced Japan to attack us at Pearl Harbor
because we imposed a boycott in 1940 of oil. And they would only have
two years of oil. And they pleaded with us and we said no.
It was sort of like the Roosevelt administration was sort of doing what President Donald Trump
is doing by putting boycotts—although it wasn’t a secondary boycott—on
Russian oil, in reverse, that people would not buy Russian oil. Because
that was a desperate move to stop an aggression on the part of Russia.
China had been invaded by Japan
in 1931—the first sign of war—and 1937. And the United States did not
get active. And finally, when it went into Vietnam, Southeast Asia in
1940, it said: Enough is enough, we’re going to not sell Japan oil.
And Japan, remember, had started that because they went in, not only
to get the rice belt of the Mekong Delta, but also to stop all
importation of goods from the West into China. So, they started the
blockade.
More importantly, you gotta remember that the war in Europe had
already begun on Sept. 1, 1939. And by the time we imposed this 1940
boycott, there was no free Europe. And all of their colonies in the
Pacific—and I’m talking about the rich areas of Southeast Asia that had
been under the control of France. I’m talking about the oil, the Shell
oil company’s holdings in the Dutch East Indies. And I’m talking about,
soon, the Malaysian rubber in Singapore.
They felt that they could absorb these orphan colonies from a
nonexistent country that was now controlled by Hitler. And therefore,
they wanted to press the attack because they thought the only way that
they could be stopped was the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.
They thought they could take Singapore. They did. They wanted the
rubber in Malaysia. They got the oil in the Dutch East Indies. They went
into the Mekong Delta. They had been fighting in China. So, it was kind
of a last pathetic effort on our part to stop them and try to avoid war
in the process.
Very quickly. Another thing about the Pacific War. Adm. Isoroku
Yamamoto was not a peacenik. Everybody said, he said: I can raise hell
for six months. And then I can’t guarantee anything. We’re up against
the American colossus.
He had been to the United States and studied at Harvard in a military
context. But more importantly, Yamamoto threatened to resign, to the
Japanese military government, unless he got his way. He wanted to attack
Pearl Harbor. He thought he could get away with it. And he practiced
for months and simulated the attack. And he said: If I don’t get my way,
I will resign. He was a bellicose militarist, as was the emperor,
Hirohito, and as was the entire Japanese government.
Finally: Another issue that’s come up among conservatives is that in July of 1940, after all of Europe
was under the control of Hitler, Hitler said: I am the victor. I don’t
need to have this war anymore. Great Britain, do you want a peace? You
can have your British Empire.
First of all, nobody could trust him because why would you after the
Anschluss, after the destruction of the Sudetenland, and the annexation
of, basically, the destruction of all of Czechoslovakia, the invasion of
Poland? He had never told the truth about his territorial ambitions.
But more importantly, I think this is really important, he had all of
Europe under his control.
Britain would not have been able to survive a mere 30 miles away from
a German empire extending from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the
Russian border. And he had no intention of giving that up. And there
already had been disturbing reports coming out that he was killing the
disabled, rounding up Jews in Poland, mass murdering.
There was no way in the world Britain could make a deal with Hitler
and expect him to keep it or survive, in the next few years, with the
entire European continent under the control of National Socialism.
I could go on. But these are very important points because in this
fractious times, when we have the internet and we have all of this fake
news and all of these conspiracy theories, it doesn’t behoove us to go
back and say that this noble cause to win World War II was somehow
flawed, or that we were too harsh on the Japanese, or we started the
war, or we didn’t give Hitler a chance. These were fascists, Nazis. They
wanted a war. They thought they could win the war.
If the United States was culpable for anything, it was in the Great
Depression, in 1939 and ’40, we were not sufficiently rearmed. Hitler
looked at us, the Japanese looked at us, and they said: Their army is
the size of Portugal. They don’t really have an Air Force that we have
to worry about. They’re weak. We can get away with it.
Historians traditionally blame the failure of the League of Nations—the post-World War I, Versailles-era dream of President Woodrow Wilson—on many things.
Its membership was small (58 nations). The league’s utopian rhetoric lacked commensurate force.
The postwar ascendant United States refused to join.
The winners of World War I, like France and Britain, were terrified
of rearming, while the losers, such as Germany and Austria, were eager
to.
Consequently, the league in the mid-1930s allowed fascist powers to
make a mockery of the Versailles Treaty. It could never even enforce its
own embargoes and sanctions.
Without big power backup, the league soon watched the Axis powers prey on weak nations and start another world war.
The U.S. was now in. Indeed, the U.N. headquarters were to be in New York.
Almost all the nations of the world—currently 193—eventually joined.
A “Security Council” of the great powers (and former great powers)
would “police” the consensus of the General Assembly of all members.
The U.N. would spin off a host of subordinate globalist projects, such as the World Health Organization, the International Criminal Court, and the World Bank, to promote peace, law, health, and profit.
Yet the U.N.’s 80-year record has proved as dismal as the league’s 26 years.
Only half the U.N. members are free societies and true democracies.
Antisemitism is now a U.N. brand. So are rank corruption and profiteering.
No one expects the U.N. either to prevent or stop a war.
Aside from serving as a platform for national propaganda, it is increasingly both impotent and toxically anti-Western.
So, who or what on the global stage is dealing with the planet’s existential crises?
Who makes any effort to stop the Iranian race to get the bomb and its use of terrorist proxies?
How about the war in Ukraine? China’s serial threats to absorb
Taiwan? And serial border conflicts in the Balkans, Africa, Asia, and
the Middle East?
As far as the West goes, who or what is warning about its suicidal trajectory of open borders, massive illegal immigration, and crashing fertility rates?
Who lectures on the dangers of disarmament, green energy mandates,
and attacks on international shipping in the Black Sea, the Red Sea, the
Straits of Hormuz, and the South China Sea—along with the shaky future
of the Suez and Panama Canals?
So far, only the U.S. has stepped up—or, more particularly, its
controversial president, the supposed neoisolationist Donald Trump.
In whirlwind fashion, Trump has inserted himself into the middle of numerous border wars.
He apparently has used American economic and military carrots and
sticks to achieve ceasefires for now between Rwanda and the Congo,
Armenia and Azerbaijan, India and Pakistan, Kosovo and Serbia, Cambodia
and Thailand, and Egypt and Ethiopia.
The U.N. has done nothing to stop the horrific fighting in Ukraine—a modern, three-and-a-half-year-long Stalingrad, where 1.5 million are now dead, wounded, or missing.
Trump has tried everything—from engaging Russian leader Vladimir
Putin to haranguing him, and from haranguing Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy to engaging him—while outlining a peace plan along a DMZ commercial corridor.
Iran will not obtain a bomb for years—thanks to Trump’s 30-minute use of American bombers.
For the first time in memory, Iran’s once fearsome terrorist armies
of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis are nearly neutered. There is even rare talk of a comprehensive peace on Israel’s borders.
The U.S. border is secure.
Illegal entries are nearly nonexistent, offering a model for Europe,
beleaguered by massive illegal immigration from the Middle East.
Trump may fail to find lasting solutions to all these horrific conflicts and crises.
But unlike the U.N. and the past American administrations, at least
he is trying to persuade the belligerents that each has more to gain by
deals than deaths.
Instead of soaring U.N. utopian rhetoric or fueling one side with
money and weapons to win these forever wars, Trump engages both
aggressor and victim—even those he despises.
He offers neither sanctimonious Wilsonian visions of universal brotherhood nor “both sides” gobbledygook diplomatese.
Instead, Trump simply appeals to their mutual economic and financial
interests by offering new trade and foreign investment openings—and the
present and future goodwill of the U.S. to help the belligerents find
security and prosperity.
Always looming in the background is the superb but unpredictable U.S. military.
The failed international community despises Trump’s mercantile approach. It hates his self-referential, one-man showmanship.
President Donald Trump is sending federalized troops into Portland, Oregon, because the Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center and headquarters there is under veritable assault, especially in the night hours.
In other words, Antifa-like protesters surround the facility. They
make it almost impossible to drive in and out. And they’re trying to
disrupt the idea itself that the federal government has a right to
apprehend illegal aliens that have warrants out for their deportation.
Why would Donald Trump want to get into that morass in Portland, Oregon?
Why would he want to incur such anger from liberal Portland? I don’t
think he wants to. After all, he’s going to be judged in the November
midterms on the economy, maybe the border, but not whether he went into
Portland or not. In some ways, it’s a lose-lose situation.
There’s a lot of you listening who say: “You know what? If Portland
wants to destroy their city, let them stew in their own juice.” But
Trump’s point, I think, is different. He is saying that the city of
Portland, by its nonenforcement, by intent—not just capability, by
intent—it is allowing an area of Portland to be free of, exempt from the
law. Local law, state law, but more importantly, federal law, too.
In other words, people can commit mayhem against federal personnel with impunity.
And Donald Trump
is saying that I have to protect the civil rights of those agents and
that agency. And I have jurisdiction, as the president of the United
States and the ultimate enforcer of federal law. So, I’m going to go
into Portland with sufficient force. And I’m going to guarantee that ICE
facility works as it does elsewhere, without harassment. And if this
now-designated terrorist organization Antifa tries to disrupt, we’re
going to charge them, not with local statutes, not with state, but
federal charges. And these carry severe penalties.
So, this puts the ball in the Oregon court and the Antifa court
because if you object to what Donald Trump is doing, you’re finding
yourself, as to quote former President Barack Obama, “on the wrong side of history” in two senses.
Antifa is a
terrorist organization. The only mystery is, it’s centralized, with a
head that runs the tentacles of this octopus. I don’t know. But by
branding people who identify with Antifa, de facto, as terrorists, it
makes anybody who wants to create a safe haven for their terrorist
activity part and parcel to terrorism. Do you really want to be
defending terrorism if you oppose the federal government’s efforts to
protect its own personnel from terrorists?
But more importantly, there’s a larger historical question. This is a
civil rights issue. Donald Trump is saying that no city, no state, no
county has the right to take away the civil rights of any citizen. And
this was a civil rights issue in the 1950s and ’60s.
Remember, in 1962, George Wallace stood in the doorstep of the
University of Alabama, and he said: As far as I’m concerned, segregation
forever exists here, in Alabama. I’m governor.
And the Kennedy administration said: Nope. You’re a citizen of the
United States of America. We’ve already adjudicated this. We had a civil
war over it. No state can violate federal law. And so, you may think
that the University of Alabama is sovereign, but it is in the United
States. And I’m federalizing your National Guard. And federal troops
will come and they will remove you. And they will ensure that people
that you do not want into the university, on the base of race, will have
the right to do so.
And it was successful.
What am I getting at? The mayor of Portland, the governor of Oregon,
that liberal community of Portland, by allowing this direct violation of
federal law and the denial of civil rights to ICE agents, is basically
nullifying federal law. It is a neo-Confederate idea. They are in league
with the George Wallaces of history by saying: We, in our infinite
morality and wisdom, can adjudicate what the federal government can do
and what it can’t do.
I’m sorry, Oregon, we fought a civil war over that. And your idea
lost. There is no legal justification for state nullification of federal
law. Legally and morally, you’re on the wrong side of history. You’re
siding with terrorists who are trying to maim and hurt federal agents.
For what? Trying to enforce an existing federal law, and specifically,
targeting people who have criminal records, here illegally, and are
dangers to the community that you will not protect.
We’ve seen, since Oct. 7, 2023, a new overt antisemitism, a new
candor about prejudice against those of the Jewish faith and Israel in
particular.
Recently, the CNN host and commentator Van Jones
said something I found quite astounding. He was asked about the news,
and he said that we are ignoring a mini genocide or maybe a regular
genocide in Nigeria. And that is because we have emphasis on other
areas.
I mean, that’s a legitimate criticism to make. Over 120,000 Nigerians have been slaughtered by Islamic terrorism.
But he says that’s not being covered because they’re not Jewish. In
fact, he coined a phrase I found quite disturbing: “No Jews, no news.”
Mr. Jones, let me correct you.
There are a lot of wars around the world that we’re not covering.
One hundred thirty thousand Armenians were just ethnically cleansed
the last two years from Azerbaijan in disputed territory. But they had
been there for hundreds of years. No one covered it.
In the second and third Chechen wars, Russia went into Chechnya, and
they leveled the city of Grozny. They wiped it out. No one really knew
anything about it. It was not covered.
As I am speaking, India and Pakistan exchanged missiles with each
other. They’re both nuclear powers. Nobody’s talked about it. It was
prompted by a mass terrorist attack against India.
So, there’s all sorts of conflicts all over the world that are not being reported on besides the Nigerian genocide.
Second: The Middle East
is a special place. It is the nexus, the historical nexus of three
continents: Europe, Asia, and Africa. It is the home for the three major
religions of the world—or at least three of the most important—Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam. It has been a historical cauldron of great
empires: Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic kingdoms, the Roman
Empire, the Byzantines, the Ottomans, the British Empire.
This is a crossroads where power and war intersect. We almost had a
nuclear confrontation in 1973 between the Soviet Union and the United
States during the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War.
So, there are a lot of reasons why we privilege the Middle East news,
especially the worry about an Iranian nuclear weapon or Middle East
terrorism. Where have ISIS been from? Where did al-Qaeda come from?
Where did Hezbollah come from? Where did Hamas come from? Where did the
Palestinian Liberation Organization—where do they all come from? They
came from the Middle East.
Every time there is any development in the Middle East, Europe is
terrified because of their large 10% to 15%, 16% Islamic populations
that are not assimilated fully or integrated. And they’re afraid if
anybody sneezes in the Middle East, then they get a major terrorist
attack.
So, Mr. Jones, the Middle East is a special place, not because of
Jews alone, and that’s not why we cover the Middle East in a way we
don’t Africa, or we don’t Chechnya, or we don’t the Indian-Pakistan
border.
It is true that constituencies in the United States can influence the
emphasis on events abroad. We don’t talk about the Turkish invasion and
illegal occupation of Cyprus in a way that we should because the Greek
lobby has been assimilated, integrated, and intermarried, and it does
not have the clout that it used to.
We are talking about the Middle East, more about Gaza, than we are
Oct. 7. And that is because the population from people from the Middle
East in the United States has soared. And we have hundreds of thousands
of students from the Middle East—illiberal regimes—that are either Arab
or Islamic, or both. And they put a high premium on coverage of that
area.
If we want to give the Nigerian genocide its proper emphasis—and I
think we should—then we need to inform black Americans, a natural
constituency, and say, “Why don’t you lobby and influence the Left and
the mainstream media to cover this disaster?”
The only time we’ve covered major problems in Africa
were during the apartheid regime, when it was white-on-black violence.
Now that there’s more black-on-white violence in South Africa and it’s
one of the most dangerous places in the world in the post-Mandela era,
we don’t talk about it.
But why don’t we talk about Nigeria? And why doesn’t the black
community get energized in a way that you would like them to? I don’t
know. I think there’s something to the fact that it doesn’t have a
sensationalism.
For example, there are 12,000 black Americans tragically killed every
year. We don’t talk about them. But we do talk about Trayvon Martin and
George Floyd and Michael Brown because it was white on black. And that
creates a new sensationalism that I guess, in our callousness, we don’t
talk about on a Saturday night in Chicago when 20 people are killed.
There’s another final thing to remember, Mr. Jones. The people who
are killing innocent Nigerian Christians, perhaps 130 over the last 15
years, are black Islamic terrorists, Boko Haram. And in the hierarchy of
DEI, the Left does not criticize groups that they feel are on the oppressed or victimized side of this Marxist binary.
So, in their way of thinking, you do not criticize black Islamicists,
even when they kill black Christians, to the same degree you would if
they were other Christians or they were white settler colonialists, as
the Left calls them.
So, getting back to the original problem. It’s not: “No Jews, no
news.” It’s the fact that the Middle East is a special place,
historically. Currently, it’s full of global dangers, whether the Suez
Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, the Bosphorus. It’s a unique place.
And the reason that we do not talk about the Nigerian Holocaust is
not the color of someone’s skin. We learned that from Chechnya, as I
pointed out. And we’ve learned that from India and Pakistan. We’ve
learned that from the current violence with Kosovo and Serbia. It’s
because it does not have the same geostrategic resonance that the Middle
East does.
If we want to reboot interest in that terrible catastrophe, then
let’s get the African American community energized, as other ethnic
communities like the Arab Islamic community, who put such emphasis on
Gaza. Let’s do this with Africa.
And let’s not care about who the people are who are killing innocent
black Christians in the sense that we give them a pass. They are black
Islamic terrorists and they’re not part of any non-white coalition.
They’re horrific people and they’re doing horrific things. And it’s past
time the United States should draw all of our attention to these poor
victims in Africa that are being slaughtered by a radical, religious
creed.
A petition to disband the Rutgers University Turning Point USA
chapter has been launched for promoting “hate speech” and creating a
“toxic environment.” The petition launched this week, and by Wednesday,
already has 1,679 signatures.
The petition on Change.org, started by Alexander Di Filippo, reads,
“Having lived in New Jersey my entire life, I’ve always cherished the
inclusive educational environment we have cultivated here.”
Our schools have been places where diversity is celebrated, where
every student and faculty member, regardless of their background, is
valued and respected for solely their qualifications. After all, that is
how we provide the best, most well-rounded education for our youth.
Yet, recently, I’ve witnessed a disturbing shift.
The Rutgers chapter of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) has been
continuously promoting hate speech and inciting violence against our
community. This disturbing behavior has created a toxic environment that
has already led to tragic consequences. Alarmingly, a respected
professor felt compelled to leave the country, fearing for the safety of
their family due to threats and harassment cultivated by this group.
We urge Rutgers University to immediately disband the Turning Point
USA chapter from its campus. By doing so, we will not only be upholding
our commitment to educational excellence but also ensuring a safe and
inclusive environment for every individual within our community.
Filippo is a former student from Rochester Institute of Technology,
and majored in game design and development, minored in music and
technology, and creative writing. He appears to have no direct
connection to Rutgers University.
Last week, the TPUSA chapter launched its own petition to remove
Professor Mark Bray, citing concern over his support for Antifa, a
U.S.-designated terrorist organization.
Bray is the author of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” “The
Anarchist Inquisition: Assassins, Activists, and Martyrs in Spain and
France,” and “Translating Anarchy: The Anarchism of Occupy Wall Street.”
He and his family moved to Europe following the petition for his
removal, citing safety concerns.
“Allowing such a group to operate within our state, on our campuses,
undermines the core values of respect, diversity, and inclusion that we,
as a community, hold dear,” Filipo’s petition continued. “The
activities of the TPUSA chapter are contrary to the educational
principles we aim to uphold. They spread messages that breed division
and intolerance, and these actions speak louder than any supposed
academic freedom they claim to exercise.”
Peace between Israel and Hamas in the Middle East appears to be
growing closer, President Donald Trump said today at the White House.
“WOAH: Marco Rubio hands President Trump a note to let him know about
major developments for peace in the Middle East happening right now!
Trump says he can only take a couple more questions before they’re going to need him for discussions.”
Trump hinted at a possible peace deal, Townhall’s Dmitri reported.
“I may go there, sometime toward the end of the week. Maybe on
Sunday, actually, and we’ll see,” Trump said Wednesday from the White
House during a press conference about the U.S.-designated terrorist
organization Antifa. “We have a great team over there, great
negotiators, and there are, unfortunately, great negotiators on the
other side also. But it’s something I think that will happen. Got a good
chance of happening.”
Trump might leave for the Middle
East after his visit to Water Reed on Friday, Real Clear Politics
reporter Philip Wegmann posted on X.
“Moments ago @PressSec said
in a statement that Trump “is considering going to the Middle East
shortly thereafter” his visit to Walter Reed Friday. Earlier,
eagle-eyed @EvanVucci of the AP captured this note @MarcoRubio passed to Trump saying that negotiations are ‘very close.’
Trump received the note during the a round hall on Antifa.
“I was just dealing with people from the Middle East, our people and
other people on the potential peace deal for the Middle East – Peace for
the Middle East, beautiful phrase, and we hope it’s going to come true.
But it’s very close, and they’re doing very well,” Trump said.
Oct. 7 marked the two-year anniversary of the Israel-Hamas war.
The U.S. has entered final negotiations with Hamas, Trump said.
“We’re dealing with Hamas and many of the countries, as you know. All
of the Muslim countries are included. All of the Arab countries are
included,” Trump said. “Very rich countries and some that are not so
rich, but just about everybody’s included. It’s never happened before.
Nothing like that’s happened before. Our final negotiation, as you know,
is with Hamas, and it seems to be going well, so we’ll let you know.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced on Tuesday that he is
launching an undercover operation to “infiltrate and uproot leftist
terror cells” in the Lone Star State.
The announcement comes after a flurry of Antifa activity in the state
— especially against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
In a press release,
Paxton’s office indicated that the undercover operation is a response
“to the political assassination of national hero Charlie Kirk and the
disturbing rise of leftist violence across the country.”
“Leftist political terrorism is a clear and present danger. Corrupted
ideologies like transgenderism and Antifa are a cancer on our culture
and have unleashed their deranged and drugged-up foot soldiers on the
American people,” Paxton said. “The martyrdom of Charlie Kirk marks a
turning point in America. There can be no compromise with those who want
us dead. To that end, I have directed my office to continue its efforts
to identify, investigate, and infiltrate these leftist terror cells. To
those demented souls who seek to kill, steal, and destroy our country,
know this: you cannot hide, you cannot escape, and justice is coming.”
President Donald Trump, in September, signed an executive order
labeling Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization because of its
violent activities. This came just after Kirk’s assassination. Paxton
indicated that the operation is “building on President Trump’s bold
actions.”
Nine defendants are facing charges
related to a July 4 ambush attack against an ICE detention center in
Alvarado. Several members of antifa planned and executed the attack. One
member used a knife to harm vehicles. Others spray-painted them. The
group set off fireworks at the facility, which prompted a response from
law enforcement.
Benjamin Song fired 11 shots at the responding officers, hitting one in the neck. The officer has since recovered.
Investigators found that the members of the group sent messages using
Signal stating “blue lives don’t matter” and “send projectiles over the
yellow vests.”
Antifa-aligned operatives have also attacked people protesting
against drag shows held for children. They pepper-sprayed demonstrators
speaking out against subjecting children to sexually inappropriate
performances.
Advertisement
The group, a decentralized movement united by far-leftist ideology,
became more prominent on the national stage after President Trump was
first elected in the 2016 election. Since then, its adherents have
physically attack people at Trump rallies and other conservative events
under the guise of fighting fascism.
I’m not sure how effective it is to announce undercover
investigations into Antifa and other violent left-wing groups. But those
who embrace Antifa’s ideology are clearly a threat to regular people.
In many cases, they get away with their antics — especially in cities
like Portland, Oregon, where police do not seem very concerned about stopping them from attacking people.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is
here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the
radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for
illegals. They own this.
While President Donald Trump has stopped short of sending National
Guard troops into Chicago, the Department of Homeland Security is doing
some major damage against illegal aliens being harbored in the area.
The work has been dangerous for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement agents, who have been under siege by local activists
and criminal aliens.
"U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were targets of two
separate vehicular assaults in the Chicago metro area. In Bensenville,
Illinois and again in Norridge, IL criminal illegal aliens weaponized
their vehicles in deliberate attempts to ram and injure officers
carrying out their sworn duty to uphold our nation’s immigration laws,"
DHS released in a recent statement.
"In
the first assault in Norridge, IL, Miguel Escareno De Loera, a criminal
illegal alien from Mexico, rammed his vehicle into an ICE law
enforcement vehicle twice. He then jumped a curb and crashed his car
into a stop sign—ending his violent assault," the statement details.
"Escareno De Loera entered the United States at an unknown date and
unknown location, without inspection by an immigration official. In the
second instance, Widman Osberto Lopez-Funes, a criminal illegal alien
from Guatemala, rammed his vehicle into ICE agents during a targeted
enforcement operation, and then exited the vehicle and fled into his
residence in Bensenville, IL. This criminal illegal alien was later
arrested on scene without incident."
Operation Midway Blitz started in
mid-September and is still opposed by Democrat Governor JB Pritztker and
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson. According to Trump, a National Guard
troop deployment is still on the table as attacks on federal agents and
property escalate.
Editor’s Note:The
Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first,
Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for
healthcare for illegals. They own this.
