What Was the Purpose of Opening Our Southern Border?

 

. Now that we’ve seen, in the first eight weeks of the Trump administration, a 96% reduction in illegal entries across the southern border—and this was done, remember, without the supposed need for comprehensive “immigration reform”—it’s logical to ask what the last four years were about.

Why did we have a completely open border? Why did 12 million people come into the United States from all over the world under illegal auspices? What was the reason? Why would people do that?

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

And remember, right now, the United States has somewhere between 50 and 60 million residents that were not born in the United States. Twenty-seven percent of the population of California is foreign-born, of all statuses—citizen, legal, illegal.

That’s an enormous challenge in assimilation, acculturation, integration. And we’re not doing that, of course. But why would we do that? Why would we have 16%, now, of the population of the United States as foreign-born? What was the rationale behind that, especially in the context of illegal entries?

Looking back, what were the Democrats, what was then-President Joe Biden, what were the handlers of Biden thinking? I suppose they thought that maybe people who were coming in without English, without high school diplomas—for the most part—without capital, and without skills would be dependent on federal largess.

I know you’re gonna say people who are not here legally cannot get Medicaid. Well, they can get Medicaid in an emergency. In California, anybody can get Medicaid, which we here call Medi-Cal.

So many people came in illegally and got on Medi-Cal that the system is broke. It’s $6.7 billion in the hole. Fifty percent of the population, of all births, are on Medi-Cal. And 40% of the California resident population are on Medi-Cal.

So, was the idea to get people dependent on the government? And then that would make government grow and more redistribution and more higher taxes. A way of, what? Having equity? Taking from the small, supposed, greedy elite and making them pay higher taxes to fund this social welfare?

Or was it utopianism, globalism, 21st century-ism, end of the worldism? In which you think that borders are a 19th-century construct. We’re all people of the same planet, as we see in Europe. So, let’s just get rid of borders. Let’s make it everything from Yucatan to the Arctic Circle, we can just go anywhere we want in this utopian dream. There’s no difference.

Why is somebody who was born in Chiapas or Oaxaca or Michoacan to dire poverty and cartels and corruption, why doesn’t he get the chance of somebody who’s born in Malibu? Well, as social architects, maybe the Left thought he should have the chance. So, we’ll just destroy the border.

Or a third reason why—was it more sinister? Did they think that after 2020, when the majority of states changed the balloting laws to such a degree that earlier mail-in and early voting had only constituted 30% of those who voted, 70% voted on Election Day—now 70% of all American voters do not vote on Election Day. They don’t go before somebody and show a driver’s license. Did they think, under this system, they could bring in 12 million people and, in some cases, they could vote?

Now, that’s a very controversial topic. The Left says that they never do vote. I’m not suggesting that they do in numbers, although, I will suggest that although it’s illegal at the state level, in most states, it’s absolutely illegal at the federal level.

Sixteen local jurisdictions allow illegal aliens to vote in city council, school board elections, local referendums. It’s a trend that the Left is trying to cultivate and mine. So, do they think that, eventually, the more people you bring in—so you have 50 or 60 million people who were not born in the United States—they’re going to be a constituency? And equity being what it is and parity being—they deserve to vote.

Was that the long-term goal? Or was it a fourth reason, just simple nihilism, chaos? People were angry at the Trump years. Or they were angry at traditional America. They think it’s racist and sexist. It doesn’t provide diversity or equity and inclusion. So, what we’re going to do is just flood the zone. Twelve million people. And we’ll see how you like it. We’re gonna put them in hotels in New York. We’re gonna send them to the inner city. And we’re not gonna send them to Malibu or Martha’s Vineyard or Nantucket. But we’re just gonna flood the zone and just make so much chaos that you’ll have to deal with it, sort of like California. Deal with it.

I don’t have the answer. I don’t know what was behind it. But I do know that never in the history of the United States, within four years, did the government, by intent, destroy the border, welcome in 12 million people, during the first year of a COVID-19 lockdown, where all of us had to be very careful, wear masks, and have proof of vaccination, with no audit at all of the people who were not here.

It’s inexplicable. And it’s so inexplicable that I’m gonna end today with I don’t have any answers other than providing the possible choices and alternatives I outlined.

Other Countries Seem to Like Tariffs. So Why Are People Opposed to Trump’s Tariffs?

 

April 3, President Donald Trump announced it as “Liberation Day.” And by that he meant we were going to be liberated from asymmetrical tariffs of the last 50 years. And it was going to inaugurate a new what he called “golden age” of trade parity, greater investment in the United States, but mostly, greater job opportunities and higher-paying jobs for Americans.

And yet, the world seemed to erupt in anger. It was very strange. Even people on the libertarian right and, of course, the left were very angry. The Wall Street Journal pilloried Donald Trump.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

But here’s my question. China has prohibitive tariffs, so does Vietnam, so does Mexico, so does Europe. So do a lot of countries. So does India. But if tariffs are so destructive of their economies, why is China booming? How did India become an economic powerhouse when it has these exorbitant tariffs on American imports? How did Vietnam, of all places, become such a different country even though it has these prohibitive tariffs? Why isn’t Germany, before its energy problems, why wasn’t it a wreck? It’s got tariffs on almost everything that we send them. How is the EU even functioning with these tariffs?

I thought tariffs destroyed an economy, but they seem to like them. And they’re angry that they’re no longer asymmetrical. Apparently, people who are tariffing us think tariffs improve their economy. Maybe they’re right. I don’t know.

The second thing is, why would you get angry at the person who is reacting to the asymmetrical tariff and not the people who inaugurated the tariff?

Why is Canada mad at us when it’s running a $63 billion surplus and it has tariffs on some American products at 250%. Doesn’t it seem like the people who started this asymmetrical—if I could use the word—trade war should be the culpable people, not the people who are reluctantly reacting to it?

Sort of like Ukraine and Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine. Do we blame Ukraine for defending itself and trying to reciprocate? No, we don’t. We don’t blame America because it finally woke up and said, “Whatever they tariff us we’re gonna tariff them.” Which brings up another question: Are our tariffs really tariffs?

That is, were they preemptive? Were they leveled against countries that had no tariffs against us? Were they punitive? No. They’re almost leveled on autopilot. Whatever a particular country tariffs us, we reciprocate and just mirror image them. And they go off anytime that country says, “It was a mistake. We’re sorry. You’re an ally. You’re a neutral. We’re not going to tariff this American product.” And we say, “Fine.” Then the autopilot ceases and the automatic tariff ends. In other words, it’s their choice, not ours. We’re just reacting to what they did, not what we did.

Couple of other questions that I’ve had. We haven’t run a trade surplus since 1975—50 years. So, it wasn’t suddenly we woke up and said, “It’s unfair. We want commercial justice.” No. We’ve been watching this happen. For 50 years it’s been going on. And no president, no administration, no Congress in the past has done anything about it. Done anything about what? Leveling tariffs on our products that we don’t level on theirs.

It was all predicated in the postwar period. We were so affluent, so powerful—Europe, China, Russia were in shambles—that we had to take up the burdens of reviving the economy by taking great trade deficits. Fifty years later, we have been deindustrialized. And the countries who did this to us, by these unfair and asymmetrical tariffs, did not fall apart. They did not self-destruct. They apparently thought it was in their self-interest. And if anybody calibrates the recent gross domestic product growth of India or Taiwan or South Korea or Japan, they seem to have some logic to it.

There’s a final irony. The people who are warning us most vehemently about this tariff quote the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. But remember something, that came after the onset of the Depression—after. The stock market crashed in 1929. That law was not passed until 1930. It was not really amplified until ’31.

And here’s the other thing that they were, conveniently, not reminded of: We were running a surplus. That was a preemptive punitive tariff, on our part, against other countries. We had a trade surplus. And it was not 10% or 20%. Some of the tariffs were 40% and 50%. And again, it happened after the collapse of the stock market.

In conclusion, don’t you find it very ironic that Wall Street is blaming the Trump tariffs for heading us into a recession, if not depression, when the only great depression we’ve ever had was not caused by tariffs but by Wall Street?

Strategy to Trump China on the World Stage

 

I’d like to talk today about China. It seems to be on everybody’s mind, but explicitly on President Donald Trump’s mind.

That’s the one common denominator that explains his interest in Panama and not to turn over our key transit from East to West Coast to China. China has no business there. And same thing with Greenland.

He’s worried about the Chinese having access to the Arctic Circle. He’s worried about their trade surplus. He’s worried about circumventing unfair trade by assembling their products in Mexico. He’s worried about them sending raw product of fentanyl.

He’s worried about their surrogates, the sort of mad pit bulls, like North Korea and, increasingly, Iran, that he cuts the leash every once in a while and says—he being China—”Go to it. Cause chaos.”

He’s worried that China is intimidating countries in the Pacific and in Asia. Some of our strongest friends—Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam. Saying things like, “The United States is in decline. You better cut a deal.”

Essentially, they’re like Japan in 1940 and they’re trying to re-fashion something like the Japanese East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. That was a mercantile system aimed at the West, which soon they were to be at war at.

So, is it all depression? No. What Trump is saying is, for us to stop this, we’ve got to balance our budget. We can’t spend $3 billion a day on interest. If we’re gonna do this, we have to have trade parity. We can’t keep running up a trillion, a trillion and a half dollars in trade surplus.

And when he looks at us at home, he says, the ESG, this environmental, social, governance, that we don’t look at productivity in stocks but whether they’re politically correct or DEI and woke, that’s anti-merit—it doesn’t work. The Chinese love it. We will not be competitive.

If we look at the border, you can’t have an open border with 30 million illegal aliens. That is a drag on productivity. You have to have security.

So, what he’s doing is, in all these areas, is identifying the threat that China poses and why we, with an open, transparent, and capital society, can achieve our preeminence or guarantee our preeminence, if we make changes.

And it’s not necessarily a pessimistic picture. I’ll just give you some statistics.

Yes, China has 2,000 fighters. We have 1,500. But fighters aren’t the only story. There are bombers, there are logistic planes, there are intelligence planes. When you look at all of the U.S. Air Force, we have about 1,500 more planes. And we have over 500 fifth-generation fighters. I think they only have about 60.

Yes, they are building 200 times more ships than we are.

Remember, we built the largest navy in World War II that turned out, by 1945, larger than all the navies in the world. We were building a liberty or freedom mercantile vessel, big 10,000-, 12,000-ton vessels, every five days. We built 3,000 of them. We built 120 carriers of different classifications.

So, we were the shipbuilder and now China is. But when you actually look at our fleets, we still have 11 fleet carriers and Navy groups around them. They are over 100,000 tons. They’re all nuclear. China has two and it’s building a third. We have about 85 to 87 submarines. They have about 60. But every one of ours is nuclear. Not theirs. They only have about six or seven.

If you look at all of these statistics on economics, they have 1.4 billion people. We have about 335-340 million people, but we produce one and a half times of nominal gross domestic product as China. So, one American produces one and a half times more goods and services than his four Chinese counterparts.

If you look at per capita income, we’re still ranked sixth in the world. China’s 73. Americans have a lot more purchasing power per capita than Chinese.

So, what Trump—let me put this all together in conclusion. China is ascendant and we are static. Trump comes in and he’s looking at things at home that will restore our global preeminence—fiscal discipline, secure borders, merit-based education, energy development. And he says, “Right now we still have the lead. And we will maintain this lead. But if we continue down the trajectory we’re on, we’re gonna be in big trouble.”

Final note. We have 5,500 deliverable nuclear weapons. China has about 500. But they’re billing six or seven a month. And they want to get up to 1,000 in five years and then keep going.

So, what Trump is doing, again, is he’s saying, “Right now our system is much superior—energy, agriculture, productivity, GDP, per capita income. But the trends in the future are not good. And if we don’t change, our rival will dominate the world. And I’m not gonna let that happen on my watch.”

And I think that explains a lot of his, otherwise, sometimes, inexplicable worries, from Greenland to Panama, to the border, to our universities.

The European Left Takes Out Conservative Politicians

 

There’s two things that ring true about Europeans and their relationship to us Americans.

No. 1, they never feel or they never admit that they’re emulated. They admit they’re affected by the ill effects they think of America, but they’re not influenced by us.

And No. 2, they’re the stalwarts of democracy. We have these pathologies of swinging hard to the right, or we’re yokels, or we’re anti-democratic, or we’re MAGA fanatics. But the Europeans are pristine Democrats, we’re told. And they’re independent of America.

But something’s happened that belies those two allegations or assumptions.

No. 1, suddenly, Europe is copying the lawfare of the United States. Remember that Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, Jack Smith, and E. Jean Carroll, in civil and criminal suits, for four years tried to destroy President Donald Trump. And they had over $400 million in fines that were leveled at one point. And there were 91 felony indictments. I think Alvin Bragg actually convicted him of 32. This was in addition to trying to remove him off the ballot in 20 states and raiding his home.

So, the Europeans wouldn’t do that, would they?

The second thing is that this was a destruction or an attempt to warp democracy, not to let Donald Trump be on the ballot, to put him behind jail bars.

So, let me just tell you what’s going on in Europe. In February, this conservative, which is usually in the media termed a hard-right, far-right group, in Germany, the Alternative for Deutschland, the Alternative for Germany—it won 21% of the vote. It skyrocketed. In some areas of East Germany it won 40%.

Whether you like it or not, it represents democracy. A lot of people are fed up with German energy policy, German immigration policy, German social policy, radical environmentalism. And what did the Germans do? They immediately said, even though they have 152 seats in their parliament, the second-largest, no party—no left-wing, right-wing, centrist party—will make an alliance with them to get a majority of seats under parliamentarian democracy to run the government.

In other words, even though they had the greatest increase in their popularity, they were ostracized because somebody declared them unfit, even though they had a mandate of the people to be the second-most representative party of Germany.

In March, in Romania, a kind of an obscure conservative, right-wing candidate came out of nowhere, Calin Georgescu. And he, in the first round, he came in at the top. And he was predicted, this May, that he might be the elected prime minister of Romania.

And what happened? They declared him unfit. They said that he was—does this sound familiar—colluding with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin’s puppet. And therefore, they removed him from further consideration. They took him off the ballot.

There was no supreme court above that court, as there was in the United States, that said, “You can’t do that.” So, he’s off the ballot. He can’t be even considered, even though he was the largest vote-getter.

And then we come to this week’s news that Marine Le Pen, the head of the most conservative party in France, who has got enormous momentum—enormous momentum because of the violence of radical Islamic groups inside France, the open borders, the dissatisfaction with the blank check given Ukraine, etc. I could go on and on. Many of the same problems that we’re dealing with here—the far-left agenda.

It was probably scheduled to get more votes than anybody. And she had a pretty good chance, in three or four years, to replace French President Emmanuel Macron. And the high court did what? They said that she had expropriated funds, campaign funds. In other words, that she was blending—does this sound familiar—blending her own campaign with funds allotted from the European Union for other purposes. In other words, there was a distinction without a difference.

In other words, they only applied this law to her because they were terrified she was going to win in the next presidential election.

But that wasn’t the end. Does this sound familiar? Then they—the court, without a jury—sentenced her to four years in prison, two years under house arrest, maybe two years suspended. So, they’re going to take her out of the political atmosphere. Does that sound familiar? What am I getting at?

Given all these lectures we’re getting from Europeans about the pristine nature of democracy there and our bastardized form here, they have, essentially, in three major countries in Europe, eliminated any alternative to the orthodox, left-wing, socialist norm because they feared it was going to win. They always thought they were a fringe group, but now they think they’re gonna win. So, they’re de facto gone, the candidates.

And second, they’re copying the left wing, chapter and verse, of the United States. They saw what they did to Donald Trump and they said, “That is a good thing to do. We can do better.” And they have done better. Where they were unable to destroy Trump and only made him stronger, the more they tried to destroy him, the Europeans succeeded.

So, how ironic that we are the bastions of democracy, at least we ward off threats to it in a way that’s far more effective than the so-called guardians of democracy in Europe.

Today, even with President Trump’s victory, leftist elites have their tentacles in every aspect of our government.

Democratic Sen. Coons: 'Your Average Middle American' Is Too Stupid to Find Greenland on a Map

 

While speaking to CNN's Dana Bash on Monday morning, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), provided Republicans with the perfect opportunity when it comes to the issue of getting involved with Greenland. 

Coons was trying to highlight his party's issue with the Trump administration looking to get involved with Greenland for the sake of national security. As Townhall covered all last week, Vice President JD Vance and Second Lady Usha Vance traveled to Greenland, where they met with American Guardians at a U.S. Space Force base on the island. The Democratic senator claims he wants to see the administration focus on other issues, arguing that perhaps Americans are hoping for that as well. He couldn't just say that, though. He had to insult these Americans in the process as well.

In remarks that the Rapid Response 47 X account aptly noted amounted to Democrats "SHOWING THEIR TRUE COLORS," Coons offered that "your average Middle American" couldn't even find Greenland on a map, implying that they were too stupid. 

"Look, your average Trump voters laughs at us and says 'he's owning the libs,' and your average Middle American says 'why are you wasting your time on Greenland? I can't even find it on a map!'"

A fuller clip shared by Bash doesn't exactly help, as Coons laughed over President Donald Trump's remarks about his interest in the territory, even calling them "insane." Without missing a beat, after he insulted "your average Middle American," Coons went on to fearmonger about threatening the NATO alliance, as he also mentioned concerns from the Danes and Canadians. 

The senator also went on to stress that "we have to focus on the two issues that I said were the main issues to the Democratic Party and working Americans." If that's really the case, why would Coons make such an insulting point about part of the country, and one that Republicans aptly capitalize on.

SHOWING THEIR TRUE COLORS: Democrat Sen. @ChrisCoons thinks "your average Middle American" is too stupid to find Greenland on a map. pic.twitter.com/ethsbnBWgT

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 31, 2025

"We could spend all of our time huffing and puffing about how ridiculous it is, but look, your average Trump voter laughs at us and says, 'He's owning the libs.'" That's what Sen. @ChrisCoons told me on @InsidePolitics about President Trump not ruling out taking Greenland by… pic.twitter.com/JxCf7zcm7o

— Dana Bash (@DanaBashCNN) March 31, 2025

That's not a good look for the senator, least of all because Greenland isn't that difficult to find on a map. It's a massive island located in North America, just northeast of the United States and Canada. Further, why did Coons, whose state isn't actually located in "Middle America," feel the need to focus on a certain part of the country?

The remarks insulting "your average Middle American" has been trending over X for Monday. Coons has not posted about those remarks from his own X accounts, though he did share another part of that same interview from his political account, to do with claims against President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. 

One of those Republicans chiming in to express outrage about Coons remarks included someone who is much closer to Middle America, Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI), who also serves as the House Republican Conference chairwoman.

"Unbelievable! Democrats cannot contain their hatred for President Trump and the millions of Americans who proudly supported Republicans in November," she posted, sharing a clip.

McClain also addressed other insulting remarks against everyday Americans from other Democrats, including Hillary Clinton when running for president in 2016, remarks she's since doubled down on, and then President Joe Biden. 

"First they called us 'deplorables,' then they called us 'garbage,' and now we’re just stupid," she added in her post.

A White House aide provided Townhall with a statement on Coons' remarks, one which also referenced Clinton's "deplorables" insult. "The deplorable comment stuck because it perfectly sums up how Democrats really feel. This is how they talk behind closed doors--they have nothing but contempt for everyday Americans," the aide said. 

Unbelievable! Democrats cannot contain their hatred for President Trump and the millions of Americans who proudly supported Republicans in November.

First they called us “deplorables,” then they called us “garbage,” and now we’re just stupid. https://t.co/Z1CNt5auQD

— Lisa McClain (@LisaForCongress) March 31, 2025

Every single day, here at Townhall, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.

Oh Canada, Our Fifty-First State?

 

Oh, Canada! With glowing hearts, we see thee rise in the news!

Trump wants to take over the Great White North. They impose high tariffs on our goods, and what do we get in return? The Liberal government refuses to control the nation’s borders, and crime is rampant all over Canada, as bad as we have seen in some of the United States’ major cities. Make them America, and we solve all our problems, right?

Trump has been talking “Canada, Join Us Now” because he wants smarter trade deals, stronger economic union, better national security policy, plus the removal of the Chinese Communist Party, whom Liberal leader and former prime minister Justin Trudeau lauded with fulsome praise).

Let’s put aside Trump’s “Art of the Deal” machinations. Canada, as the Fifty-First state, has a nice ring to it. Our Founding Fathers and their immediate successors certainly wanted Canada to join the American union. The War of 1812 not only centered on defeating the final abuses of the British, but fulfilling designs on bringing the Rest of British North America into the United States! We burned their parliament in Toronto, and the British returned the favor by burning the White House. Oh say, can you see where I’m going with all this?

Do we really want the Great White North to be the 51^st State? 

Congressmen, pundits, and general conservative activists have shared their concerns about the “Canada 51) proposal. The New York Times pointed out that Canadian America would create a more Democratic America. One hypothetical Electoral College map, merging all ten provinces of Canada into one state, Trump would still have won, but by slimmer margins. The House of Representatives would go blue, and the US Senate, though still red, would go bluer. So many Canadians believe everything from the government-owned corporate media. And they hate Trump.

I do like the idea, but the implementation of the vision needs some work. Canadians are not Americans, and there’s a lot we need to know about them and their (physically) great country.

A serious consideration: our Great White Northern neighbor is freezing into a new type of dystopia. Justin Trudeau, as their most notorious prime minister, waged a war on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. His tenure, marred so much by narcissistic tyranny, induced members of the European parliament to turn on him, denouncing him as a dictator.

Ask the truckers, ask the small businesses, ask Pastor Art Pawlowski of Calgary, Alberta: Canada is a frozen banana republic, the picture of a former British colony that was granted its independence, which adopted the Anglo-American legal tradition, but embraced big government statism as the answer to all of man’s problems. Add to this mess a lack of a freedom-oriented civic culture, and you have a recipe for a Maple Syrup political miasma.

But there are many truly conservative Canadians, some born or raised in the United States for some time, who welcome annexation and integration into the United States.

Can anyone blame them?

1. Everything is more expensive in Canada. From the phone bills to car insurance, to fuel to health care, the cost of everything is just too damn high! 
2. Canadians do not have rights—or at least, the way that Americans have rights. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes a “reasonable limits” clause which has allowed the federal and provincial governments to run roughshod over every citizens’ natural rights. Canada also has Stalinist “Human Rights Tribunals” which operate with the same force as any other court of law in Canada. Say something mean (but true) about the LGBT agenda, you can be dragged before the tribunal. If you criticize Islam or deny the Holocaust, you could be charged with a hate crime! 
3. The Canadian system of government is a caricature of what any constitutional republic or democracy should be. The system all but permits a Canadian prime minister to serve as dictator. He gets to unilaterally appoint executive cabinet positions. He appoints the members of the Canadian Senate (yes, Canada's federal government does have a bicameral legislature). The prime minister can unilaterally dissolve parliament at opportune moments to secure another election victory, and he can unilaterally prorogue parliament as he sees fit. Trudeau has done both, no checks and no balance.
4. I mentioned the flimsy Charter of Rights and Freedoms above, but let me focus on a specific natural right unnaturally targeted and suppressed in Canada: the right to keep and bear arms. When faux-filmmaker Michael Moore released his vapid crockumentary Bowling for Columbine, he gave the impression that Canada was just awash with guns and everyone is free to hunt to their hearts’ content. Total lie! Gun control is severe, and use of firearms, even to protect yourself from crimes, could get you in hot water (or a frozen river). Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ordered the seizure of numerous types of firearms from all Canadians, too. Who wants that, eh?

Canada is not a free country, at least not in any discernible sense. People who have not been free need to get used to freedom. Canadians would need to become Americanized before they became Americans. Provincial governments would have to start adopting our Bill of Rights, which allows no limitations on what the government thinks is “reasonable.” Alberta is working on something like this right now! Freedom of speech means no more “human rights tribunals.” Canadians would have to get used to people owning guns and being able to carry them in public.

Following some initial Canadian-American salutary neglect, followed by a rapid dismantling of socialized medicine, energy, housing (just about everything), and the United States could enfranchise the provinces to become member-states of the United States.

On a side note, there’s the Quebec question. Sacré bleu, the last thing we need is another official language! This long-standing Canadian political problem could be solved easily: let Quebec become its own country, and the rest of Canada could join the U.S. of A, eh!

Markwayne Mullin Delivers Masterclass on 'Signalgate' During Sunday Show Appearance

 

It's been a week now since the Signalgate story came out, and the Sunday shows were predictably all over it. On NBC News' "Meet the Press," host Kristen Welker asked Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) from the start for his thoughts on members of the Trump administration having discussions over the Signal app, as part of a conversation where The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently added. As problematic as Welker's line of questioning was, Mullin held his own, earning him praise from President Donald Trump.

"A GREAT job by Senator Markwayne Mullin on beating back Kristen Welker’s, and the the Radical Left’s Witch Hunt, on the never ending Signal story. They just don’t stop - Over and over they go! Meet the Fake Press should instead explain how successful the attack was, and how Sleepy Joe Biden should have done it YEARS AGO," began his post by mentioning. As he and other Republicans have pointed out, the narrative from Democrats and their allies in the media has been to focus on the negatives surrounding the story rather than the successes. Furthermore, then-President Joe Biden even delisted the Houthis as terrorists, which is the group this mission was targeting.

He continued by speaking further about the successes of his second term while lambasting the press, adding, "This story and narrative is so old and boring, but only used because we are having the most successful 'First One Hundred Presidential Days' in the history of America, and they can’t find anything else to talk about. The Fake News Media has the lowest Approval Ratings in history, and for good reason. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!"

The senator responded by sharing a screenshot of the post and thanking the president.

Thank you, Mr. President. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/H0l9aulamq

— Markwayne Mullin (@SenMullin) March 30, 2025

How much of an issue was Welker's line of questioning? From the start, she seemed focused on the wrong details. In her question about the Signal app, for instance, she referred to it as "a commercial app," leaving out how the messages are encrypted and that the app was also used and even encouraged during the Biden-Harris administration.

Mullin himself got to that point about use of the app in the previous administration, after he also reminded Welker of the success of the mission. He reminded that "there were no war plans that The Atlantic put out" and that "what they did is they had a very successful attack against the Houthis."

The Houthis, Mullin reminded, have been a thorn in America's side for some time. "It's a terrorist organization that had been harassing our Navy for-- since 2023. They had attacked our Navy 174 times, and the Biden administration did nothing but sit on their hands. What the Trump administration did was take the fight directly to the Houthis," the senator reminded. The Biden-Harris administration had even delisted the Houthis as terrorists. "So, what this conversation should be is why didn't the Biden administration do something the last two years instead of us being focused on this Signal chat? Which, there was no classified information given out. The conversation was a thoughtful conversation, and the attack was extremely successful."

Welker continued to push back, referencing the times of the attack mentioned, wondering, "Senator, if that's not classified information... what is?"

Mullin himself pushed back as well, reminding that "this could have been going on any place in the world" and that "there was no specific information except that a target was going to be hit." He even added in another fitting dig against the Biden-Harris administration. 

Advertisement

"We have terrorist organizations coming after the United States everywhere because the Biden administration has done nothing for four years. Instead of having peace through strength, like President Trump is leading, they try to do an appeasement. And what happened is these rogue regimes and terrorist organizations have taken advantage of it. What happened here is President Trump took the fight to our enemies, which should have happened a long time before. What is wrong with a conversation that is going in place," he reminded, even prompting a "yeah" from Welker, as she allowed him to continue further. 

Mullin also brought up the overall foreign policy and national security failures of the previous administration, including and especially when it comes to the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin being out for cancer treatment without telling people. 

"In fact, why are we focused so much on this? Why didn't we focus on the 13 service members that was killed in Afghanistan? There was no outcry or anybody resigning from there. What about the idea when Secretary Austin went MIA for a surgery, and went completely offline," the senator wondered. "No one was talking about him resigning. But the left has completely lost their mind over a good conversation and that was a absolute successful mission, and they can't let it go because President Trump is leading the world again."

.@SenMullin: "We have terrorist organizations coming out to the United States everywhere because the Biden administration has done nothing for four years... What happened here is, @POTUS took the fight to our enemies, which should've happened a long time before." pic.twitter.com/8g0cAqOrmb

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 30, 2025

Stunningly, Welker had no response to those failures. She instead shifted the topic slightly when it came to supposed current concerns for servicemembers. As she asked, "Senator, what's your message to service members and their family who may feel like officials in this chain were careless with information that could have put their loved ones' lives at risk?"

That brought another reminder from Mullin about the differences between Trump's terms and Biden's term. "I think the numbers speak for themselves. We've had record numbers of new recruits coming in the service since President Trump has taken office," he offered, also reminding how Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have better priorities for the military. "The morale is through the roof because people are finally saying, 'President Trump has taken the fight to our enemies rather than sitting back and apologizing and focus more on DEI than actual lethality,' which is what our service members want to do. They want to sign up for what they did, protect American rights, and go after those enemies that want to come and harm Americans," he added.

Advertisement

Every single day, here at [Insert Site], we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.

Pfizer COVID-19 Bombshell Puts 2020 Election Into Context

 

don’t want to go back and look at the 2020 elections, especially, but there’s some developments in the news this week that suggest that we might.

Remember, the Left said that anybody who had doubts about the balloting or the procedures or the change in laws of voting in 2020 was an election denialist. And they always cited Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, kind of conspiracy theorists that were saying computers were communicating with China or Venezuela.

We’re not talking about any of that. We’re talking about the fact that in 2020, 158 million people voted. Four years later, only 155 million. That’s only happened, I think, two or three times in American history, where four years later, fewer people voted. But the country grew by 11 million people. So, that was kind of odd that we went from an 11 million increase in population but we decreased by 3 million voters.

The other thing that was very odd was that traditionally we only had about 40% of people voting before Election Day, either through mail-in balloting or early balloting. And that was very apparent in 2018, when a traditional 35% to 40%, depending on the state, did not vote on Election Day. But given the changes that were democratically inspired, on Election Day, in 2020, 70% of the people had already voted. And about 55% to 60% of those, even higher in some states, were Democrats.

So, there were changes that we really didn’t ponder at the time and we haven’t fully absorbed yet. But here’s what I’m getting at, this week, a former Pfizer executive, who now works for a British pharmaceutical company, GSK, was accused by former employees that had worked for him when he was CEO, or, I shouldn’t say CEO, in charge of the vaccine program at Pfizer.

And their accusation—they took notes during meetings, so it’s documented. And even the Justice Department under President Donald Trump now is looking at it. But here was their narrative, that Pfizer, for months, had said the results of their early testing of the efficacy and the safety of the Pfizer spike protein anti-COVID-19 vaccine was known. And they were going to announce it sometime between early October and late October. And I remember this. I wrote a column about it.

And then something magical happened. There were people on the Pfizer board, allegedly, that put pressure to delay the announcement. And delay the announcement they did.

In other words, Donald Trump was saying that we have done something no one else has done. We have given certain concessions, in retrospect, wisely or unwisely, to Moderna and Pfizer. And they, under Operation Warp Speed, we have a vaccine that they claim is 100%—it was not—guarantee about either being infected or infectious. And they delayed it.

Why did they delay it? Because they did not want Donald Trump to be able to say, on Election Day, “I got the vaccine.” They wanted Joe Biden to say, “After the Trump, after the election, only then did it come.” In fact, so profound was that about-face that Joe Biden actually said that no one had been vaccinated when he became president.

That was a complete lie. Because after the election, when Pfizer thought that Donald Trump was safely defeated, they announced it. And then, in November, December, and January, 17 million people were vaccinated.

So, just what am I getting at? There were a lot of very strange things. You remember the Hunter Biden laptop? Antony Blinken, Mike Morell—the former CIA director, interim director—they got 51 people, right before the Oct. 23 debate, to lie—and they knew it was a lie because the FBI had authenticated the laptop—to say that the laptop had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. And we know from a, albeit conservative, poll, TechnoMetrica, that that affected 8 out of 10 people who were polls votes.

That was a stunning thing to do.

And then, in addition to that, the FBI was inserting agents into the social media network at Facebook and Twitter and their job was to censor the news. What Molly Ball in her Time essay said was to suppress disinformation and misinformation.

What am I getting at? This week’s story about Pfizer sort of confirms what a lot of us said, that the news of the vaccination was deliberately manipulated and delayed so it would not give credit to Donald Trump before the final 30% or 40% of the ballots were cast.

And that was a pattern that we saw with the FBI working hand in glove with social media as well as the government and the guise of Antony Blinken, who at the time was working for Biden and would be secretary of state, rounding up ex-government officials. And they were not ex in every case. Some of these 51 authorities were still contractors.

Bottom line, the problem wasn’t computers sending out signals or fake computer ballot totals. The problem was that we radically changed the voting laws. We denied we did. In some ways, we did it for partisan purposes. We manipulated the news. And now we learn that even pharmaceutical companies were massaging the results of their test to hurt Donald Trump’s chances in the 2020 election.

How Donald Trump Is Reshaping America in Just 7 Weeks

 

How should we characterize the first seven weeks of the Trump administration because we get so much information and misinformation?

Almost a day doesn’t go by where The Wall Street Journal is predicting that we are headed for a recession, that our allies are furious at us, that the economy is on the brink.

So, what are we gonna make of all this? I think it’s time to take a deep breath and envision the first seven weeks is something like the following: President Donald Trump is in a race. He’s in a race to enact fundamental, disruptive change, a counterrevolution, and it’s going to be rough for a while, as he pointed out.

But the things that he has already done are going to have, shortly or maybe even midterm, fundamental advantages for the United States. The question is, can he message and can he explicate and explain what he’s doing so people hang on? Because the eventual reward will be great.

Now, what do I mean? We’re talking about tariffs, tariffs, tariffs, but even the mere mention of tariffs for all of these countries that have not been reciprocal and have imposed tariffs on us in a way that we would never think of imposing on them, that idea that we might return to parity, it’s had an enormous effect.

Some $4 trillion of announced investment from the Europeans, from the Saudis, from the Chinese, from the Mexican government, from the Canadians even. That will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. And that is in the process of working out.

When Donald Trump entered office in 2017, we were only pumping about 9 million barrels. When he left, we were pumping 12 million. The Biden administration immediately cut back. And then it decided, before the midterms, “Hey, Americans like affordable oil.” So then they continued the Trump plan and got up to 12, almost 13 million barrels.

Already in just seven weeks, we have increased the amount of oil produced per day in the United States by about a third of a million barrels. And we’re on schedule to get up to about 14 million barrels by the beginning of the year. And that is coordinated with an increase in Middle East production as well.

So, we’re going to see a moderation of energy prices, which may explain, already, why the inflation rate was not nearly as high as was predicted.

If we look at the border, it’s amazing. We were told that the border problem was unsolvable without comprehensive immigration reform. And there were 10,000 people swarming up per day. We don’t even—nonchalantly, nobody talks about it anymore. But it’s a revolutionary achievement. There’s nobody going across the border illegally, or at least, it’s statistically insignificant.

The big issue right now is the Left is cherry-picking judges to prevent, not the deportation of somebody who’s working, who’s never been arrested, who’s been here for five or six years, but criminals and people who already have been ordered out of the country or pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist supporters.

But the point I’m making is, what we’re doing now is Phase Two. The border is essentially solved, as far as security, and in seven weeks. Now, we’re having a difficult task of trying to find out who these 12 million people were that former President Joe Biden deliberately and with intent—malicious intent—allowed to come into the country.

But the point I’m making is this is an incredible success.

There’s a final point that I want to make. We hear about Elon Musk is not authentically American. He is a nepo baby. And we hear Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, threatening his person, along with threatening Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

All of this chaos and nihilism coming about Elon Musk and what he’s doing, but what he’s finding out, almost every day, in the Treasury, in the IRS, in the Department of Energy, in the intelligence communities, is a vast unreported siphoning off of hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, to favorable and mostly left-wing entities, both abroad and here in the United States.

And already, he has cited areas where the Cabinet officers can cut $200 billion. That’s a fifth, only after seven weeks. He’s got a fifth of the way to go. He thinks he can cut a trillion dollars without touching entitlements. I don’t know if he can.

But let me just sum up. If Donald Trump is able to fulfill this promise of commitment by foreign entities of $4 trillion in investment—$4 trillion—if he is able to cut a trillion dollars within a year or two, if he’s able to solve the Ukraine war, and if he is able to have a general peace in the Middle East, that will be the most substantial presidency—if he does nothing else—that we’ve seen in 50 years.

Final word, everybody, keep calm. There’s events in process that if they are brought to fulfillment and fruition, this country will be a radically different and radically better place.

From Profanity-Chic to Terrorist-Porn

 

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz addresses the concerns of audience members about the actions of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk at the Pablo Center in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, on March 18, 2025. (Richard Tsong-Taatarii / Minnesota Star Tribune via Getty Images)

Victor Davis Hanson, a senior contributor for The Daily Signal, is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and author of the book “The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.” You can reach him by emailing authorvdh@gmail.com.

The Democratic Party is polling about 27% approval—and sinking.

In 2024, it lost the White House, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and both the popular vote and the Electoral College, 312-226.

In 2024, Donald Trump won over 46% of the Hispanic vote, including a majority of Hispanic men. Trump also likely captured 26% of the black male vote, doubling his 2020 total.

In 2024, Trump increased his 2020 vote total in every single state. And he won 89% of all the counties in the United States.

On every issue, Democrats sided with strident leftist movements rather than the majority of Americans.

They supported globalism over nationalism, high-priced green energy over lower gas and electricity prices, and an open border and 12 million unaudited illegal aliens over security and legal-only immigration.

They seem unconcerned with our $36 trillion debt or the deterrence lost abroad that led to two theater-wide existential wars.

Democrats stay mum about unfair trade and budget deficits. They prefer the Black Lives Matter fixation on the color of our skin rather than Martin Luther King’s emphasis on the content of our character.

They support allowing biological men to overpower women in female sports events—in opposition to 80% of the electorate.

Democrats faced choices after their catastrophic defeat last year.

One, they could have stopped the hemorrhaging of their base of 18- to 30-year-olds, black men, Hispanics, and independents by moving toward the center.

They even could have worked with Trump and perhaps sought to take credit for joint successes.

Instead, they doubled down on “resistance” through street-theater terror-chic.

Democrat senators cut a group attack video, each echoing the potty word “s—.”

In a House ad, Democrat female members mimicked ninjas, kicking and punching at the camera, as if hitting their Republican opponents.

Former vice presidential candidate and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz boasts about kicking the “a–” of Republicans.

“A——” is now the standard Democrat epithet for Elon Musk, as voiced by Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly. “D—” is the preferred Musk slur from Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith.

Xenophobia is also now Democrat chic.

Walz smears Musk, an American citizen, as a “South African nepo baby.”

Other Democrat representatives question Musk’s loyalty, asking, “Which country is he [Musk] loyal to?”

Or they further boast, “We’re [Democrats] going to send Elon back to South Africa.”

An unhinged Rep. Maxine Waters shouts that she wants first lady Melania Trump deported, given she too is a naturalized citizen.

But those theatrics have now escalated into near-overt support for violence.

Democrats are blocking the deportation of dangerous illegal aliens affiliated with the terrorist-designated Tren de Aragua.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

They try to stop the deportation of resident alien Mahmoud Khalil—arch Hamas supporter, apologist for the murderers of Oct. 7, and a spokesman for the most violent student group at Columbia.

To stop Musk’s advisory Department of Government Efficiency and its identification of government waste, fraud, and abuse, leftist cabals are now terrorizing Musk’s Tesla brand nationwide.

They seek to destroy cars, dealerships, and charging stations. Individual Tesla owners are sometimes tailed, confronted, and threatened.

Democrats claim no formal role in such terror—but more or less seem to approve of its ends and means.

Left-wing comic Jimmy Kimmel winks and nods on national television about the current violent Tesla terrorist campaign.

Walz celebrates the resulting drop in the Tesla stock price. As Minnesota’s governor overseeing his state’s sizable investment in Tesla, Walz could care less about trash-talking his own taxpayers’ investments.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett boasts that Musk “must be taken down.”

She brags she wants to physically assault Sen. Ted Cruz, who “has to be knocked over the head, like hard” —adding “I think you punch, I think you (sic) OK with punching.”

Crockett even mocked disabled and wheelchair-bound Texas Gov. Greg Abbott: “You all know we got Gov. Hot Wheels down there. … And the only thing hot about him is that he is a hot-a– mess, honey.”

Former Democrat House member and once-censured Rep. Jamaal Bowman claimed Musk was a “Nazi” and an “incompetent thief.”

Democrat Rep. Al Green was censured by the House for disrupting the Trump joint address to Congress—and led away screaming and shaking his cane at the president in failed efforts to shut down the speech.

Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who once issued threats to Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh by name, now boasts, “We have people going to the Republican districts and going after these Republicans who are voting for this and forcing them to either change their vote or face the consequences.”

Furious at their own increasing impotence, these contemporary Democrat Jacobins are dabbling with their own version of a reign of smut terror.

They are probably too impotent to derail the country, but they are certainly destroying themselves.

Trump Admin, Don’t Try to Befriend People Who Despise You

 

Apparently, about 10 days ago, around March 15, the security team of the Trump administration—which included Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary; Marco Rubio, the secretary of state; JD Vance, the vice president; adviser Stephen Miller; Susan Wiles, another presidential adviser; some intelligence officials; John Ratcliffe, head of the CIA; National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard—there’s about 15 people on it.

And they were communicating from an inherited protocol from the Biden administration, an encrypted Signal of media vehicles, so that they could talk about national security questions, specifically, including whether to bomb the Houthis in retaliation for shutting down maritime transportation on the Red Sea.

But here’s what happened. Somebody, and allegedly it’s national security adviser Michael Waltz, who was one of the architects of this group chat that was supposedly encrypted, put Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic Monthly.

I mean, this is insane. He is one of the most hard-left critics of the Trump administration imaginable. But he was on there. And he listened to these conversations, apparently, for about 10 days.

And then, when he was waiting and—he never notified anybody that they had mistakenly put his name on the inclusion list to this confidential information. He just sat there and didn’t tell anybody, of course. He was waiting for a big scoop. And he got it when on March 15, they decided to bomb the Houthis.

And there was an internal discussion. JD Vance said, “This is kind of against the MAGA initiative of not wanting to have optional military engagements.” Some people said, “The Europeans benefit, they need access to the Red Sea. Here we are, again.” But there was an internal discussion for and against.

As soon as he heard that, though, he learned that a few hours later there was an actual attack. He decided he was going to be famous or, in right-wing circles, conservative infamous.

So then on March 24, he published, “How I know all of this and they put me on this chat list.” In other words, he didn’t ever identify anybody and say, “This was a mistake. I don’t have a national security clearance. Please don’t put me on there.” No. He just listened in, stealthily, through their mistake.

And what do we make of all this? Of course, the Trump administration people said immediately, “This was not classified information. It was just internal discussion.” Goldberg said, “This was a complete lapse.” And then, all proverbial hell broke loose.

Congress brought people in: “How can you do this?” Pete Buttigieg, of all people, said, “This is a massive screwup.” Hillary Clinton weighed in. This is a person who destroyed 30,000 emails—many of them, some of them classified—and of course, was using a private server to transmit classified information, which even James Comey said was felonious.

And then, we had Leon Panetta weigh in and critical. This is the Leon Panetta, of course, who was one of the “51 intelligence authorities” who lied to the country on Oct. 23, 2020, to arm Joe Biden in the debate.

But here’s my point. Why would you ever put Jeffrey Goldberg?

He has a history. He was the one, in 2020, right during the campaign, to help Joe Biden—went back and said, in 2018, when Donald Trump was visiting Normandy in France, that it was rainy and he said it wasn’t safe to go to the Aisne-Marne cemetery to see the American dead. I was on the American Battle Monuments Commission, so I know that cemetery very well. And 19 people didn’t deny Jeffrey Goldberg. But in a campaign-timed, synchronized manner, he said that Donald Trump said, “These people were suckers to die that way.” And he said he had four anonymous sources that were in the room. He never identified any of them. Nineteen said he was not telling the truth.

Joe Biden, almost immediately, began cutting commercials and saying that this had something to do with his son. And his son had died. Remember, he kind of mixed up the details, that his son had died because he was in Iraq. And how dare Trump? And it really hurt Trump in the 2020 election.

A couple of other details, very quickly. This is the same Jeffrey Goldberg, remember, that my former colleague, Kevin Williamson, left the National Review—he trashed me on the way out, by the way. I don’t hold any grudges on that. And he said he was going to work for Jeffrey Goldberg. And he announced it at a very high salary. And then, before he even started, Jeffrey Goldberg flipped, bowed to pressure, and said he was an anti-abortion person. And they fired him.

He doesn’t have a very good record for veracity. Why would you ever, ever even consider having his name in your Rolodex? And the answer is, I don’t know.

But as a general rule, if you’re a conservative, you only deal with hostile media—and that’s 95% of them—on the circumstances that you go in expecting a public debate. You don’t talk to them off the record. You don’t disclose them. Trust me, I’ve had this same experience.

Final note. This reminds me so much of 2010. Remember Stanley McChrystal, he was the commanding officer of all forces in Afghanistan. He brought in a similar Jeffrey Goldberg-type of person, Michael Hastings, a left-wing Rolling Stones reporter. Why, as a general in charge of intelligence, would you allow a left-wing reporter to be embedded with your intimate conversations?

And at one point, an unidentified officer said, “There’s a phone call and it’s Joe Biden,” who was the vice president, but he called him “Joe, bite me.” Hastings clinged on that, wrote a big letter. McChrystal allowed an officer—they chuckled, apparently, and they made fun of the vice president. They went back to Washington. He was recalled. And Barack Obama relieved him from command.

Remember, Article 88 says that no active or retired officer—high-ranking officer—can disparage the president, vice president, and Cabinet members.

I don’t think that he meant that to be public. And he didn’t say it. He just heard it and did not correct it. But that was grounds enough to relieve him from command.

Final footnote. We’ve had a lot of generals who’ve said a lot worse about the commanding officer. And none of them, whether active or retired, have faced any of the circumstances that Stanley McChrystal faced.

Bottom line, if you’re in the Trump administration, do not, do not under any circumstances think you can be friends with people who despise you. And this is a lesson that I hope Mike Waltz learns. And I think he will. And that they should press on.

The Real Oligarchs Who’ve Been Running Our Country

 

Have you heard this word lately that’s been bandied about, “oligarchs,” “autocrats,” “dictators,” but mostly, “aristocrats”? In other words, that, supposedly, a small cabal of very wealthy people have snatched control of the government. And the Democrats, as the loyal opposition of the fighting middle class, is trying to stop it.

They use the word “plutocrats.” Oligarch, just from the Greek word, the rule by the few. Plutocrat means the rule by the wealthy. Aristocrat means ruled by the so-called best—or those people who claim they’re better born. But they’re using all of these terms to castigate, apparently, the relationship between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump.

But here’s what’s ironic. We didn’t hear any of this during the Obama years, during the Clinton years, or during the Biden years. In other words, for 20 years, no one made mention that the country was controlled by oligarchs.

Let me just look at the list for you of the 10 wealthiest people in the United States: Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Mike Bloomberg. They all have one thing in common, they’re all worth over $100 billion. And until recently, I would say the 2024 election, they were all against the Republican Party and were lavish donors for the Democrats.

Why they’re angry now is because Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post—which was a vehicle, a money-losing, but still influential, vehicle for leftist and Democratic agendas—decided not to endorse either Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump.

Elon Musk—who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 when he was beloved by the Left because of Tesla, because of SpaceX, because of Neuralink, because of Starlink. Also, according to what he said, voted for Joe Biden in 2020.

Mark Zuckerberg, remember, put $419 million in his various PACs to absorb the work of registrars to great effect in the 2020 election.

Mike Bloomberg probably has the record, single record. He used $1 billion to try to capture the 2020 Democratic primary nomination—$1 billion.

So why are they so angry at the oligarchs when the oligarchs were synonymous with Democrats?

And I should point out that George Soros put in $125 million in the 2022 midterms. He has the all-time record. It’s assumed that he has spent $22 billion for left-wing candidates and left-wing PACs and left-wing foundations.

Sam Bankman-Fried, the felon, he put over $100 million from 2020 to 2022, all on the side of Democrats and left-wing candidates. His mother was a bundler, a stealthy bundler for billionaires in Silicon Valley.

So, what’s going on?

One last data point, in the 2024 election cycle, the Biden campaign, the Harris campaign, and the Trump campaign together raised $4.7 billion. But guess what? The Democrats raised $1 billion more than did Trump.

So, what is going on? There is an anger now that for the first time in 20 years, over three administrations—Clinton, Obama, and Biden—for the first time there are multibillionaires who are starting to question their Democratic loyalty: Larry Ellison, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, perhaps even Jeff Bezos.

Most billionaires are still on the side of the Left, but they don’t tolerate any apostates. So they’re angry they don’t have a lock on the oligarch, so to speak.

I’ll just finish with one reflection. Why did they start to bolt? Because the Democratic Party was so sure of the support of billionaires, they started making demands upon them and saying:

You’re going to give this amount of money. And if you want to play ball with us, this is the monopoly that will control artificial intelligence. You are included. You’re not. We’re going to get the FBI to partner with you, Mark Zuckerberg, and Meta, Facebook, to make sure you ban information injurious to the Biden campaign. You, Twitter, the old Twitter, you’re going to have FBI.

And they revolted. And Donald Trump came along and said:

I welcome all of you because I’m not gonna tell you who to vote for or what to do, but I’m going to look at you in a nationalist-populist manner. You are the William Knudsens, the Henry Fords, the Henry Kaisers of the War Production Board. In other words, I’m gonna go to bat for you so that you do not have your wealth confiscated in China, so that people in Europe do not impose special taxes on you just because you’re making too much money or try to censor your news. In other words, I’m going to try to enlist you on behalf of the country in a patriotic, nationalist fashion.

And they found that argument more persuasive than they did, “You better give to us and this is what you’re going to do.” And as a result, 30% of the billionaires bolted and are either now neutral or they favor the Republicans. The vast majority, to repeat, still favor Democrats.

The Democratic Party is the party of the very wealthy, plutocracy, and the billionaire class, but they demand absolute loyalty and solidarity. And any defections or apostates then cause them to go—I don’t know what the word is—ballistic that anybody would doubt their ability to control the big money in the United States. Big money in the United States is a Democratic phenomenon.

Rate this:

The Left’s Tesla Terrorism Agenda

 

I’d like to talk today about what I think I would call terror porn.

Terror porn is analogous to Hitler porn. Hitler porn, of course, is when you castigate or denigrate a public figure by comparing them to Hitler. Sort of like The New Republic putting a cover with President Donald Trump with a Hitler mustache dressed up as a Nazi leader. And that, we saw that all during the campaign in various manifestations.

But right now there’s an effort to sort of legitimize terror, and here’s what I mean. As we scan the news, Tesla dealerships, Tesla charging stations, individual Tesla owners are either being doxxed or targeted for violent acts. We’ve had cases where Tesla drivers were pushed off the road and confronted by left-wing activists. We’ve had Molotov cocktails thrown at dealerships and we’ve had Tesla charging stations that were attacked.

What is the point of all of this? The point is to send a message that anyone who would buy a Tesla or drive a Tesla or even have Tesla stock should not because by the use of this violent activity, they’re trying to drive down Elon Musk’s popularity and indeed his viability.

And this is what’s very ironic about it. One of the ways that the Left is doing this is not just to use all of this left-wing money that comes through nongovernment organizations, foundations, political action committees, and filter it to these various groups, but to have mainstream spokespeople engage themselves in terror porn.

I’ll give you some examples.

The late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel said something along the lines, “Well, we shouldn’t burn Teslas.” But then he had this pregnant pause, “We shouldn’t burn Teslas.” Meaning, of course, you should do that.

Gov. Tim Walz, we talked before, has sizable investments in Tesla stock in Minnesota, of which he is the governor. He’s in charge of protecting that investment for the taxpayers. He went on stage and bragged that his app said that the Tesla price was going down, down, down. He called Elon Musk an a——. He was back at it again. We mentioned earlier he’d called him a nepo baby and a South African, questioning the legitimacy of his American citizenship, apparently.

Then we had Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who is online in Zooms and other venues trying to help organize “Stop Tesla” with a little qualifier: We don’t quite want violence—even though she knows that almost all of these efforts have a violent aspect to it.

You would’ve thought that astronaut Mark Kelly might have wanted to comment on the spectacular rescue of two astronauts that were brought back to Earth on the SpaceX super rocket. Instead, he didn’t do any of that sort. Instead, he cut a video showing that he’s getting rid of this car because he said he didn’t want this Tesla anymore because it was made by an a——. There must be some type of Democrat talking points that says you’re supposed to call Elon Musk an a——.

What is going on? What’s going on is this is the legacy of asymmetrical law enforcement over the Biden years.

If you were a protester on the abortion question and you were peaceable, peaceful, and you protested peacefully, but you were trying to limit abortion, the FBI was unleashed on you.

If you were a rioter in 2020 and for the month, the end of May, June, July, August, September into October you participated in burning a federal courthouse, a police precinct, an iconic church, you were part of the movement that destroyed $2 billion in property, resulted in 35 deaths, 1,500 police officers, and you were one of 14,000 people arrested, the chances that you were going to be arrested if you were 14,000 and then subsequently arraigned, indicted, convicted in jail were minuscule. It was just a fraction. In comparison with the Jan. 6 protesters, many of whom four years in prison and over 900 of them were convicted.

So what I’m getting at is, there was a message to the Left and it said, “If you engage in street violence, that is considered legitimate political protest, legitimate political protest, and there will not be legal consequences.”

A final note, Sen. Chuck Schumer, we’ve talked about before, is a very funny person and he poses as a sober and judicious senior spokesman of the Democratic Party and he is the Democrat, now, minority leader in the Senate.

He was the one, remember, as I’ve said on at least one broadcast, that said, “You, Justice Neil Gorsuch; you, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, have sown the wind and you will reap the whirlwind and you don’t know what’s hit you.”

He returned to that type of threats again when he recently said that, in defense of his activism—and remember, the far Left says he’s not activist enough—what he said was, “You shouldn’t get angry about me. I got all of these left-wing judges appointed that were cherry-picking to stop the Trump agenda through executive orders.” But here was the keyword, and he said, “We are sending people into Republican districts to disrupt and have consequences for their votes.”

So what I’m getting at is there’s a two-tier system. There’s the front-line soldiers who were burning Teslas and intimidating Tesla owners. Then there is the sober and judicious Democrat functionaries, the architecture of the progressive movement, who, with a wink and a nod, says, “We’ve gotta protest. We’ve gotta organize. But let’s not get violent.” But in fact, they are greenlighting violence themselves.

Left-Wing Judges Try to Stymie Trump

 

Ostensibly, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance won an overwhelming victory, and you can define that in a variety of ways. Not just a plurality, but I think it would be called a referendum on America.

After all, they were the first ticket on the Republican side to have won the popular vote in 20 years. They won an overwhelming majority in the Electoral College. They retain control of the House of Representatives. They won the Senate. There’s a 6-3, supposedly, conservative majority on the Supreme Court. They won all of the swing states.

So, they came into office with this momentum from the American people that was expressed through a national election. And yet, they are now stymied.

Almost all of their initiatives are facing two types of opposition. The first is, in a pre-planned way, liberal organizations, lavishly funded by what they themselves might want to call oligarchs, have funded massive lawsuits against the Trump administration, stopping executive orders.

Remember, this idea that executive orders were a rapid and effective way for a president to rule didn’t come from Donald Trump. It came from former President Barack Obama. He recalibrated the use of executive orders when he lost the majority in Congress and he said, “I have a pen and I have a phone. And I’m gonna act accordingly.” And he did so.

But what we’re seeing now is that these liberal organizations are targeting left-wing judges.

Judge Ana Reyes in Washington—who was described as a Biden appointee, as the first Latina, LGBTQ—she just ruled to stop the Pentagon’s new policy, not having or forbidding transgendered people in combat units.

Judge Jesse Furman, another lower district judge, he just put out a stay not too long ago rescinding the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil.

And Judge James Boasberg stopped the deportation of this very dangerous Tren de Aragua gang of South American criminals who came here illegally.

Now, what was the argument that the Trump administration was using that incurred the wrath of liberal activists? All they wanted to do was say, “We don’t know the effect of transgendered people in combat units. This is a new phenomenon. For now, we’re gonna put a stay on it.” That was the Department of Defense and the Trump administration.

We don’t know how these people from South America and these gangs got here. But we do know they came illegally. And they are residing illegally. And they’re in very dangerous gangs and many of them have committed crimes. So, if it was—if they broke the law to come here, we want to enforce the law to have them go back.

Khalil, I think, as we’ve seen news accounts start to recalibrate the idea that he was just a neutral, semi-partisan, not very active supporter of Hamas, is not true. He was the official spokesman for the Apartheid Divest at Columbia University/Barnard College. He supported the massacres on Oct. 7. He was a big supporter and adherent of Hamas, which is a terrorist-designated organization.

And so, what we’re seeing is liberal groups trying to keep people who are supporting the terrorist Hamas or supporting these gangs inside the United States.

This is very analogous—cherry-picking left-wing judges is very analogous to what we watched all during the 2022-24 lawfare period.

You remember Judge Arthur Engoron, Judge Juan Merchan, and Judge Lewis Kaplan—he was the judge in the E. Jean Carroll case. And we had the Alvin Bragg judge and the Letitia James. They were all—like these judges, they had two things in common: They were left-wing activist judges, appointed by either former President Joe Biden, Obama, or former President Bill Clinton. And they had minor to major conflicts of interest where people in their family were big, either had worked for a prior Democratic administration or themselves were activists.

And what did they do? They tried to put Donald Trump in jail.

That same lawfare has now been transmogrified and put into a more concerted effort to stop everything that Donald Trump is trying to do. And what he’s trying to do, remember, is not radical. It’s just simply to enforce immigration law. It’s just simply to bring back the country to the middle.

Will this succeed? I don’t think so. I think the district courts will over—the appellate courts will overturn it, if not, then the Supreme Court. But they know that. The point is, they want to delay, delay, delay.

Donald Trump is already a lame-duck president. He only has four years left. And he has got less than two years before the midterm elections. Their plan is to drag all of these executive orders, which are backed by a vote of the people who elected Donald Trump, is to drag them through the courts and stop him. Create a sense of chaos. Make the Republicans, in general, and Donald Trump, in particular, overreact. And then, cause chaos, controversy, constitutional crisis. And eat up these precious four years.

As of now, it’s succeeding, but time will tell and we’ll weigh in next time.

The Lengths Democrats Are Willing to Go to Stop Trump

 

I want to apologize to you.

I have been writing columns and have suggested to you in these videos that the Democrats didn’t have an agenda. In other words, they were just nihilists. But I went back and looked at everything they’ve said, everything they’ve written, what their surrogates and the media have done, and I discovered they do have a counter-agenda. They really do. And it’s organized.

And I want to give it a fair hearing right now. So, I wrote down 10 things that I think are thematic of the Democratic agenda that offers an alternative to President Donald Trump.

The first is that Donald Trump must be considered, as Chris Matthews just said, a Mussolini-like figure. He must be opposed in every aspect. He must be demonized. Everything he does is evil.

And by extension, the same is true of Elon Musk. You must consider him an alien that should go back home to South Africa. That he’s not a true American. He’s only been here 23 years.

You cannot talk about his Tesla revolution that pretty much saved the idea of an electric vehicle. You cannot talk about the successes of SpaceX. You cannot talk about saving social media by opening it up and getting the government out, i.e., the FBI colluding with the old Twitter. You cannot talk about giving free internet service to Ukraine.

He’s evil. And everything he does must be opposed. And we must continue that to the point where he is depersonalized.

The second thing I’ve noticed, very quickly, is Immigration and Customs Enforcement is wrong. You have to stop ICE from deporting anybody, even if they’re a criminal.

Open borders are completely normal. We let in 12 million people under President Joe Biden. We have no apologies whatsoever. No major Democrat has come forward and said, “We made a mistake. We’ve overloaded communities, like the San Joaquin Valley or the Rio Grande Valley or the inner city. It’s cost us perhaps a trillion dollars in social costs. We apologize.”

No. Everything about open borders was wonderful. And we will try, as Democrats, as much as we can to stop ICE from deporting even criminals. Sanctuary cities are immune—600 of them.

Radical Palestinians are to be favored over Israel. We see that with the controversy over Mahmoud Khalil. We in the Democratic Party feel that Israel is a settler country.

Now, this is the only issue that the majority of Democrats are clearly for. About 70%, 65% of Democrats favor the Palestinian cause. So, there’s no ambiguity about it now.

Democrats feel that Israel is the culprit. And if there’s antisemitism on campus, it’s sporadic or it’s done by people other than the pro-Hamas green card holder or student visa holder.

There should be no cuts. No cuts in the federal government. We have a $1.7 trillion deficit. Joe Biden probably racked up $7 to $8 trillion in additional debt, but $36 trillion is no problem. We’re not going to discuss it.

All we know is there should be no layoffs. Everything that USAID was funding was fine. And the federal government was running perfectly until Donald Trump came. There was no abuse, fraud, anything. We have never talked about fraud and abuse in recent years. And there was a reason why we’re perfectly happy with these massive deficits.

Ukraine—Donald Trump with his “Art of the Deal” antics, threatening to cut off, cutting off, restoring aid to Ukraine, it’s a mess. We have to go back to the Biden approach. We’ll do whatever it takes for as long as it takes. So, we need to up the amount of aid, maybe $300 or $400 or $500 billion to Ukraine, and enable it to defeat Russia. And if that costs 2 or 3 million casualties, we don’t care.

We offered no alternative ceasefire plan, no strategic resolution, nothing other than to feed the Ukrainians to defeat Vladimir Putin and bleed out the Russian military forces, even if it takes the last Ukrainian to do so.

DEI should have never been cut out. We still have to emphasize that we are a country of white rage, white privilege, white supremacy. And we in the Democratic Party will find ways to work around these executive orders, but maybe we will have to reclassify the titles of diversity, equity, inclusion officers, but we will not give up on it.

We had a recent air traffic controller supervisor who was leaking the test questions to DEI applicants. This is the type of activity we endorse.

We have to be much more radical in our opposition. So when Donald Trump speaks before Congress, we must shout him down. Rep. Al Green is an iconic hero. Most of us refuse to censor him. He shook his cane and disrupted Congress. That’s good. Rep. Jasmine Crockett is the new spokesman of the Democratic Party.

And in association with that, also, it’s very important for us to use the F-word, the S— word, the D— word. We’re going to make videos where we use this profanity. We’re going to shout out that in Congress. The point is that to appeal to the lost middle-class supporter, we have to sound earthy. And we plan on doing that.

And finally, we’ve got to create chaos. So, anything Donald Trump, as I said, anything that Elon Musk does, any Cabinet members’ initiatives, we have to go hysterical.

And the point is this, we prefer slow decline. We understand we had $36 trillion in debt. We understand we were running a trillion-dollar trade deficit. We understand our military was shrinking. We understand that we were investing over a trillion dollars in a commissar like DEI. I could go on. But that was a slow decline. It wasn’t controversial.

With the open border, yes, it was open, but nobody, there was no hysteria. We just let in 12 million people illegally. We even flew them in at night so it wouldn’t bother you.

The point is slow decline. Quiet, calm is much preferable to loud restoration. Why cause all these problems? We were declining very slowly. We could have gone on like this for 20 years. But why did we have to suddenly think that we needed to stop and to arrest the decline?

That’s pretty much it. A 10-point agenda by the Democratic Party.

On the Left, They Knew They Were Lying to Us All Along

 

For years, the Left
has advanced utter untruths for cheap partisan purposes that they knew
at the time were all false. And now when caught, they just shrug and say
they were lying all along.

• Once it was known that the first COVID-19
  case originated in or near a Chinese communist virology lab engineering
  gain-of-function deadly viruses—with help from Western agencies—the
  Left went into full persecution mode.

They damned as incompetent, racist, and conspiratorial any who dared
follow logic and evidence to point out that the Chinese government and
its military were both culpable for the virus and lying

A million Americans died of COVID-19. Millions more suffered
long-term injuries. Still, the left-wing media and the Biden
administration demonized any who dared speak about a lab origin of the
deadly virus.The lies were designed to protect the guilty who had helped fund the virus’s origins, such as Drs. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins.

The Biden government also tried to use the lab theory to ridicule a supposedly pro-Trump “conspiracy.”Western corporate interests deeply invested in China did not want their partner held responsible for veritably killing and maiming hundreds of millions worldwide.

• Almost as soon as Joe Biden was inaugurated, the Left knew that he was physically and mentally unable to serve as president.

Indeed, that was the point.Biden’s role was designed as a waxen figurine for hard-left agendas
that, without the “old Joe Biden from Scranton” pseudo-moderate veneer,
could never have been advanced.His handlers operated a nightmare administration: the destruction of deterrence abroad, two theater wars, 12 million illegal aliens, a weaponized justice system, hyperinflation, and $7 trillion more in debt.

• By 2017, the public knew three truths about the so-called Christopher Steele dossier.

One, it was completely fallacious—fabricated by a has-been,
ex-British spy Christopher Steele. He childishly had cobbled together
lurid sex stories, James Bond spy fictions, and Russian-fed
disinformation to destroy the Trump candidacy and later presidency.Two, it was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. She hid her
checks behind the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins Coie law
firm, and Fusion GPS paywalls.Three, the FBI under James Comey hired Steele as an informant. It
helped disseminate his concocted files and was also instrumental in
trying to subvert the Trump campaign and later administration.

• No sane person ever believed that Hunter Biden’s laptop
  was the work of “Russian disinformation.” Its contents a year before
  the 2020 election were verified by the FBI, but it kept mum about its
  confirmation.

The pornographic pictures, the evidence of prostitution and drug use,
the electronic communications implicating Joe Biden in his family’s
illicit shake-down operation of foreign governments—all were never
challenged by anyone who was associated with the laptop’s contents.Yet future Secretary of State Antony Blinken,
along with former interim CIA Director Mike Morell, sought to fabricate
a colossal lie to arm their candidate, Biden, with plausible denial in
the final presidential debate before the 2020 election.They rounded up a rogue’s gallery of 51 now utterly discredited
former intelligence authorities to lie to the nation that the laptop was
likely fake.All knew the FBI had verified the laptop. But they also knew that
their titles would empower their lies that the Russians likely invented
the laptop to aid the sinister Trump.And the ruse worked like a charm.In the debate, Biden cited their lies chapter and verse to claim the
incriminating laptop was fake. A lying media damned Trump as a puppet of
Russian President Vladimir Putin. Biden, little more than a week later,
won the 2020 election.

• The Biden administration deliberately destroyed the southern border
  and welcomed 12 million illegal aliens. And then it lied that Biden had
  no power to stop the influx.

The media fabricated the excuse that “comprehensive immigration
reform” was needed to enforce federal immigration laws already on the
books.Upon inauguration on Jan. 20, Trump, in a matter of days, stopped what Biden had deliberately engineered for years.Biden’s handlers wanted new millions of poor illegal aliens, dependent on social services, to swarm the borders.They saw them as future voters and constituents to fuel their victim/victimizer Marxist binaries.And they now quietly see their efforts as a huge success, knowing
that it will be nearly impossible to find the millions of illegal aliens
they welcomed in.All these lies have divided the country and permanently damaged the U.S.The perpetrators have neither apologized for their lies, nor tried to either deny or substantiate them.No one involved has ever been held legally accountable.The legacy media permanently ruined its reputation and will likely never be seen as credible again.The Biden administration, overseer of many of these lies, will be
regarded as the most duplicitous and dishonest presidency in modern
history.