Biden Dismantled Basic Immigration Law. Now, Americans Are Suffering.

 

Immigration is not just back in the news, it’s in the news every single day.

Almost every single day we see someone here illegally like Mohamed Soliman committing an act of terror when he tried to burn Jewish activists. Burn them. Burn Jews.

We saw Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who was an MS-13 member and became a cause celebre when he was deported. He was a spousal abuser. He was a gang member. He was a human trafficker.

I don’t even want to get into the sad, tragic tale of all of these young, beautiful, vibrant women who have been killed by illegal aliens. I don’t want to get into the issue that here in Fresno County about a half of the traffic accidents, the people involved that were culpable have left the scene of the accident.

So, it’s a real problem.

And let’s put in some historical perspective. Former President Joe Biden’s legacy will be very—he has a legacy and it’s gonna be very hard to deal with. For the next 20 years, we’re gonna be dealing with the fact that he and former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas deliberately, deliberately, intentionally destroyed immigration law as we know it. They opened the border and they let in 12 million people.

Keep in mind some data. The administration—the Trump administration is doing a heroic job to close the border, but that’s not the problem now. They solved that existential problem. The problem is that you have 12 million people here that are completely unaudited. And this is in addition to somewhere between 10 and 20 million that were here already, prior to Biden.

And on a good day, acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Tom Homan and ICE and the Border Patrol can maybe deport, they find, 800. But Joe Biden let in 10 times that number per day. So, they would have to step up their efforts by a magnitude just to get back to where Joe Biden started.

If you let in 12 million people in the space of four years, you’re talking about 3 million a year. You’re talking 250,000 per month. So, you can see it’s 8,000 a day and there’s no way that that seems even feasible, even when the Left tries to obstruct that effort with sanctuary cities and district judges who entertain these lawsuits to stop it.

The other thing to remember is what was really tragic about what Joe Biden did is he privileged illegal aliens over U.S. citizens. Now, what do I mean by that? His Defense Department—it started under other Trump-era defense secretaries—but they drummed out 8,500 of some of our best soldiers because they did not trust the experimental mRNA vaccine. Many of them have had COVID-19 and had natural immunity. Think about that.

At the same time they did that, they were letting about 7,000 to 10,000 people a day come through with no worry about whether they were vaccinated or not.

So, they were telling some of our bravest soldiers: “We’re going to go after you and drum you out of the military if you don’t get this vaccine. But over here, we’re gonna let in 10,000 people, 8,000 people. We don’t know who they are. But they don’t have to have a vaccine.”

Take another example. We were supposed to all get something called the Real ID in 2020. It was delayed because of COVID-19. And it was enacted, I think, on May 7, 2025. But here’s the point. For the last two years, people have had to get ready to get that ID or they can’t fly. They have to have a passport or a birth certificate. They have to have proof of residency in their state, you know, bills or a lease or something. It’s a difficult process. You’ve got to go in person to the DMV.

So, what’s my point?

We were flying people in from Southern Mexico—to take one example—into particular airports in the United States, mostly in the Southwest but not exclusively. And we were doing it in the dead of night. And sometimes when you went to an airport, it would say “immigrants” but they were not checking anybody’s ID.

In other words, a person in Chiapas or Yucatan or Oaxaca or Michoacan could say that they were a refugee, get on an app—you know, hit the app—get on a plane, and fly to an airport at 2 in the morning without passport control. Think of that.

That happened while most Americans, as I speak, cannot get on a flight unless they have a real super ID that has been certified and adjudicated by forms of ID, in addition to your driver’s license.

Again, we are treating people who are breaking the law by coming here and residing here better than we are U.S. citizens.

And the wall is a wonderful thing that’s continuing. President Donald Trump’s efforts to secure the border have been widely successful but the problem right now is an existential one. What do you do with 12 million people when you can only deport 800 or a thousand a day? And you need to deport, if you want to solve the problem and get back to square one on Jan. 20, 2021, you’ve got to increase that by 10.

Final query: Why did Joe Biden do this? Or the people around him? What was the purpose? Was it to expand the DEI agenda? Was it to bring poor people that didn’t speak English, without skills or high school diplomas, so they would grow the entitlement industry? Have to raise taxes? Redistribution? Was it nihilism? He just got angry at Trump people and he thought, “This is one thing they won’t like, we’re just gonna open the borders”? Was it to change the demography so with mail-in and early voting these people could be instant constituents? Or was it just that he was mean? Mean. He was ?nihilist. He just said, “I’m going to blank blank this up.” Or was he incompetent? Good old Joe from Scranton.

I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that we’re gonna have to find it in the next 20 years because this is the most grievous thing of all the terrible things that happened under the Biden administration. This one will be his legacy and we’re gonna have to live with it.

Ukraine War Heads in a Dangerous New Direction

 

Remember, it’s now gone on for over three years. And we had pretty much discussed the contours of the fight. Russia has now controlled about 20% of Ukrainian territory. And it’s using its enormous advantage in manpower, gross domestic product—10 times the GDP, four times the manpower, 30 times the territory—to grind down the Ukrainians, which have been slowly withdrawing net withdrawals. This is in addition to Crimea and Donbas that the Russians already had annexed.

The general consensus was that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was being unrealistic. He was counting on more than the $400 billion from the EU and the United States and NATO powers to continue the fight with the express purpose of gaining not just territory taken by Russia in 2022, but also what was taken during the Obama administration, the entire Donbas and the entire Crimea.

And the Trump administration had said: This is unrealistic. This is $1.5 million dead and wounded. It’s Stalingrad. It’s the Somme. It’s Verdun. We have to have some kind of peace to stop this slaughter, this cauldron of death, on the doorstep of Europe.

Ukraine has pretty much given up the idea that it can win a slugfest with Russia on the ground. Its army is pretty much static. The average age is up into the 30s of recruits. About 10 to 12 million people have left Ukraine. So, its problem is not technology. It’s not weaponry. It’s not money. It’s manpower. So that was pretty much what we saw.

And the Trump administration was basically saying what the world did to Gen. Carl Gustaf Mannerheim, the heroic Fin, in 1939 that withstood a Soviet invasion that wanted to absorb 10% to 15% of Finland. He fought for four months. And then finally, Mannerheim said, “I can’t resist this juggernaut. I’ll cut a deal with Stalin. Give him 11%. Promise not to use Finland to launch attacks in the future on Russia.” And he saved modern-day Finland for what it is now.

So people had sort of said that paradigm might work, that Zelenskyy could get real and give up the idea of getting back the Donbas and the Crimea, not get into NATO, and you might have a deal.

But the problem was President Donald Trump, who pursued that line of peace negotiations, found out that Russian President Vladimir Putin cannot take that back, apparently, after he started this insane war and tell the oligarchs, “I reified the fact that we have Donbas and Crimea. I went in a few miles into Ukraine. I expanded on it. Maybe we now have 20% of Ukraine. And they won’t be in NATO. And we’re going to have a ceasefire.” They said, “You did—that’s all you got? And you lost a million Russians, dead, wounded? No. No.”

So then we were in a stalemate. And Trump sort of pivoted and said now not Zelenskyy was unwilling to make a deal, but actually it was Putin.

And then something happened this week. Two things happened. A brilliant Ukrainian strategy of bringing by truck, stealthily, drones into the remote parts of Russia. Some of them are 2,500 miles away. Arctic bases, strategic bases that Russia counts on for the delivery of nuclear weapons and cruise missiles. And they have been used against Ukraine. Tupolev bombers.

And lo and behold, they launched this stealthy raid by drones. And we’ve never seen anything like it in military history. It destroyed 30% to 35% of the Russian strategic bomber fleet—$7 billion, 41 of these huge planes, some of them were sort of intelligence planes as well.

And then following up, there was a drone attack on the Kerch Bridge, that only link, really, that’s accessible for easy transport from mainland Russia into the Crimea. It’s essential. Now, the bridge will probably be repaired, but what am I getting at?

It shows you that Ukraine is now kind of having a turtle strategy. It’s not going to waste its limited manpower slugging it out. But it’s going to use drones and it’s going to make over a million of them. And they are the cutting edge of inexpensive, effective drone fabricators, producers in the world. They’re going to attack targets deep in Russia.

Is that going to bring Putin to the table? I don’t know. Strategically, it’s justified to show Putin he could lose all of his bomber fleet because it’s not just that they destroyed 41 bombers, but there is no deterrent. So, Putin and the Russian military are thinking: If they destroyed a third, what’s stopping two-thirds or the whole thing? How do we stop this? And who got them that close to be launched? And do we have enemies in our military? What’s going on?

So it was very effective. But the point I’m making is there’s going to be a retaliation. And there were certain rules in the Cold War that the two superpower rivals that were nuclear did not use a proxy to attack the homeland of another. So, imagine if during this Cuban Missile Crisis, Fidel Castro launched missiles that took out a third of our B-52 fleet. We wouldn’t just go after Castro. We would say to the Russians, “You broke the rules. You are attacking the American homeland using a proxy.”

I don’t know if that rule still applies, but what I’m getting at is while we all applaud Ukraine for doing something that was strategically necessary, geostrategically, it opens a new phase of the war. And Russia’s going to retaliate. And it’s talking about a type of retaliation we haven’t seen before. I’ll leave it at that.

But just when we thought the war might have some type of conciliation or armistice, Ukraine struck in a way that it had never done before and it was very effective. And we applaud that. But it’s going to earn a counterresponse that could lead to a cycle of escalation that could be very dangerous not just for Ukraine, but for NATO in general and the United States in particular.

The Left Is Selling Chaos. America Isn’t Buying.

 

I was looking at the polls today. Given all the negative views of President Donald Trump on the economy, he still has a 17-point lead over the Democrats when the public is asked, “Who do you have greater confidence in, Donald Trump or the Democrats, to manage the economy?”

We’re getting a lot of bias reporting on the riots in Los Angeles. The governor of California here, Gavin Newsom, and the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, have come down decidedly on the side of the violent protesters against the federal government trying to enforce federal immigration law.

And yet with all of that bias and prejudicial news reporting, 54% of the American people favored deportation. Not just apprehension. Deportation.

And then when we look at the transgender issue, that’s been in the news because there was a baseball game in Minnesota where a boy—a biological male, transgendered female, if you will—dominated sports and kept pitching inning after inning to ensure their victory.

We had one here in Clovis, California, the same type of situation where a biological male dominated the sporting event, taking the awards away from his female competitors. Same thing in Northern United States in Washington.

So, what I’m getting at is that the criticism of Donald Trump is not resonating with the people. On all those issues he polls favorably. And why is that? I think it’s a disconnect.

I talked about The Wall Street Journal in the past, they seem disconnected from reality after they told us we would now be in a recession, the stock market would be in the proverbial toilet, it would not recover, there would be high inflation and high—that didn’t happen. We just looked at the news. Inflation: down. Job growth: good. Unemployment: steadily low. Personal savings and real wages: up. Record profits for the Standard and Poor index.

And yet, when you look at The Wall Street Journal, they’ve learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Most of their stories today—and I’m speaking over the weekend and early part of next week—what are they talking about? They’re talking about a recession coming and people are jittery. But their own news stories do not validate their headlines.

So, the same thing is true of the transgender. People think that’s a popular issue. That is a losing issue. Donald Trump is on the right side—70% to 30% of the American people—just as he is on the economy. They believe that if you have fair and not just free trade, it’s in our interest. They believe that if you cut federal spending, it’s in our interest.

They believe, in the case of the Los Angeles riots, they do not want another May, June, July, August, September 2020. They do not want their officials, like former Vice President Kamala Harris, saying, ”These riots are not—these demonstrations are not gonna end. They’re gonna go on to election.” They don’t want that. They do not want a Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s wife saying that she opened up the window so she could smell the burning from the rioting. They don’t want that.

So, he nationalized the guard. And when Gavin Newsom, the governor of our state, sides with the protesters, and the mayor, Karen Bass, sides with the protesters who are now violent, we say to them:

Is there something about fire you like? You didn’t do anything about the fires in Pacific Palisades. You had policies that discouraged conservation of the hillsides and reasonable trimming and clearing up bushes and shrubs. Didn’t you learn from that, Mayor Bass? You were in Ghana of all places. Didn’t you learn from that? So, why would you and Newsom attack the federal government for trying to enforce a federal law and then using federal troops to restore order so we don’t have a 2020-like riot? And what credibility do you have when you are saying ‘reckless’ and ‘chaotic,’ the government. What’s reckless and chaotic is right before our eyes. People burning and looting.

So, what am I talking about? I’m talking about the Left’s insane opposition to anything Donald Trump does when the evidence is clear that the economy is doing well, that most people want deportations and an orderly immigration process and favor deportation to people who broke the law, and that they don’t want biological males in female sports.

And yet, the Left doesn’t see that. And so, they just hammer away on unpopular issues. And they wonder why people are kind of tired of them and why Donald Trump seems to be more popular than ever and more successful. It’s because he reflects what the people want and the people who oppose him don’t.

Strong Fathers Build Civilizations—Weak Ones Lose Them

 

. June 15th is Father’s Day. It’s always the third Sunday of June.

It derives, in our country, from the early 1900s, when people wanted to because we had a previous holiday of Mother’s Day. They wanted to also honor Father’s Day. In Europe, I think, it’s called St. Joseph’s Day to honor the husband of the Virgin Mary.

And, in any case, we honor what our parents did for us by Mother’s Day and for Father’s Day. It recalls something that I like to share with you. One of the roles of fathers is to give young children, especially males, a sense of direction. And almost this tragic sense that sometimes you have to do things that you don’t want to do, but somebody else won’t do them, you’re going to be in trouble.

And I look back at my father—I’d like to relate just three things very quickly.

Once he wanted us to work in the summer. We were working on the farm. There wasn’t enough work, so he had a friend that wanted us to shake almonds with a mallet. In those days, there was no machine. You just hit the mallet with a canvas. But it was 110 degrees in August. So, he dropped us off in this 40 acre almond field—the four of us—and he started to worry. He said, “My God, it’s hot. I’ve got to go talk to this guy.” And the guy said, ”No, you said you’re going to drop them off.” Bottom line. He came back in his early fifties and he had his work clothes on and he got a mallet. And he worked every day, for a week, hitting the trees while we moved the canvas and put them in gunny sack. And he was completely in sweat. And he said, “You boys are going to be in trouble.” And every hour, he went down to a mountain drive-in and brought back drinks and water. But he stood by us the whole time. And he outworked us.

Second thing I remember was, I was in Greece and I had a torn ureter. That’s when a kidney stone—a staghorn calculus—gets lodged and the ureter and begins to cut. And I was in pretty bad shape and I called my parents—they knew about it—and I said, “The doctor can’t take it out. I’ve got to get home.” My father said, “You get on the next flight, I wire you the money. Your mother will find a surgeon. And I will pick you up.” I said, “Well, how am I going to get from the airport to Fresno?”

“You worry about that. You worry about the flight. I will get you.” So, 20 hours later, I go there and here’s my father at the airport. I was 20 years old—excuse me—24. And he picks me up. He was 6’4″. He puts me into this old Buick station wagon, that he’d made into an ambulance. He put down all the seats. He had pillows, and he said, “We’re off on a wild ride, Victor.” And we drove 200 miles, in the middle of the night. And he pulled up right to the ambulance entry at Fresno Community Hospital. He pulled over in Los Banos. He called the surgeon and said, “I’m going to be here. You operate.” He pulled in. And within 40 minutes, I was being operated by a surgeon, in Fresno. Because of him. He saved my life.

The other thing that I remember was, I was—very quickly— at Stanford University, in a very bad neighborhood. I didn’t have a lot of money. I was on a scholarship. And he was very worried. My mother, of course, was too. And he said, “I’m going to drive up and see this.” So, he went up and he saw it was a rough neighborhood. Didn’t have a lot of money. The next thing I knew, he came over to my apartment and he had these sacks of frozen foods. And they weren’t just prepared foods, they were steaks, they were roast. And he said, “I bought you enough meat for six months. Let’s put it in the freezer.”

And I said, “Oh my gosh.” And my roommate, he was very poor. He was from a steelworker’s family in Ohio. So, he had all this meat. And then he said, “You have any money?” And I said—he looked—“Give me your wallet.” So, I had $20. And that was a lot of money, in 1975. So, he pulled out his wallet. He had three twenties. He gave all three to me. I said, “You don’t have any money to drive home.” He said, “You don’t worry about it.” And he said, “That $80, now you’re going to be—I want you to eat well.” He did that every time I was in trouble. And I think that’s the role of fathers.

And finally, I said to him, ”Dad, why do you always do this?” And he said, “Because that’s my responsibility. And that will be your responsibility, when you have children. You’re always there if they need you. You’re not there to pamper them. You’re not there to subsidize them. But they need you to keep them going, when they can’t go on their own.” And he didn’t mean that, in the sense of dependency. And he was always like that. And I cherish the memory of him.

And I think all of us, in this period of turbulent times, I think we must reevaluate the role of fathers. To the degree this country will make it, it will be a strong father figure that instructs us how to be masculine. How to be a man. How to protect the weak. How to stand forward and challenge bullies, that prey on the weak and the innocent. And that’s a lost art now. And to the degree, that we’ve had strong fathers, as I did, I think each year of our lives, we appreciate it evermore on Father’s Day.
Thank you very much.

The Rogue’s New Gallery of Left-Wing Scoundrels

 

Leave a reply

The entire career of race-baiter Al Sharpton was founded on falsehoods about the Tawana Brawley scam.

Nearly everything the Left told us about the Trayvon Martin fight was false.

The “hands up, don’t shoot” Ferguson fable and the Covington kids myth were quickly exposed.

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

The Duke lacrosse and Jussie Smollett melodramas were laughable.

Russian “collusion,” “laptop” disinformation, and Joe Biden “fit as a fiddle” gaslighting were utter lies.

But more recently, the hard Left lost its mind championing a host of violent, unsavory characters.

The illegal alien and El Salvadorian national, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was portrayed as a victim of unfair deportation in the Left’s larger, losing war for open borders.

Abrego Garcia became a “Maryland Man”: a supposed poor victim of Trump overreach.

He was constructed as a family man engaged in construction to feed his family, who somehow forgot to become “documented” and was deported.

In truth, Garcia is now facing felony indictments for human trafficking. He was a likely MS-13 gang member, a violent and bullying woman-beater, and rarely employed gainfully in construction.

Luigi Mangione was a rich, spoiled kid who dabbled in Jacobin politics.

Posing as a revolutionary, Mangione ambushed Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. He murdered him in cold blood near a New York hotel.

Instantly, some on the Left embraced Mangione as a revolutionary hero who delivered justice to a supposedly greedy corporate capitalist.

Mohammed Sabry Soliman, like Garcia, was a violent illegal alien. He bragged about his hatred of Jews in general and Israel in particular.

So Soliman made some Molotov cocktails and tried to incinerate Jewish marchers advocating on behalf of Israeli hostages still held by Hamas.

Soliman’s wife and five children, to whom Soliman filmed a video explaining his dedication to violent jihad, were also illegal aliens.

Soliman may well have preferred to burn Jews to remind us of the fires of the Holocaust ovens.

In the mind of the mainstream liberal media, the Soliman family was cruelly detained by the evil Donald Trump administration that was considering returning the illegal aliens to their Middle East homes.

But recently, during the LA riots, the Left went completely crazy as the entire Democrat Party and California state officials sided with violent protesters and illegal aliens.

The open border rioters soon got the message that left-wing California officials were on their side.

So, throngs began burning cars. Illegal aliens waved Mexican flags and burned American flags.

Protesters spat on law enforcement and pelted them with rocks, firecrackers, and concrete blocks.

Stores were looted. Critical freeways were swarmed and shut down.

And for what?

To protest the legal efforts of U.S. Immigration of Customs Enforcement to serve deportation warrants to a few hundred of some 10 million-12 million illegal aliens who had illegally swarmed into the U.S. during the Joe Biden administration’s four-year destruction of immigration law.

California Governor Gavin Newsom damned the federal immigration efforts as “chaotic” and “reckless” and seemed obsessed only with Trump.

Then Newsom dared ICE to arrest him.

Like some antebellum, neo-Confederate, states’ rights activist, Newsom threatened to withhold California’s federal income taxes from the federal government—a possible felony.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass—recently infamous for junketing in Ghana while Pacific Palisades burned down—warned ICE that, “We will not stand for this.”

What did her threat mean? Did she intend to use force to support the street thugs against her fellow American officers?

California Democrat Congresswoman Norma Torres screamed at overwhelmed ICE agents seeking to issue arrest warrants with the obscene threat, “Get the f— out of LA!”

As the mob violence increased and public outrage grew, a desperate and now embarrassed Newsom could only double down on his obsessions with Trump.

What has caused Newsom’s Trump Derangement Syndrome?

Is it because Trump called out the National Guard and Marines to aid an overwhelmed Los Angeles Police Department to stop the violence that left-wing officials and the media had appeased?

In sum, is the Left once again trying to commit political suicide?

Polls showed overwhelming public support for deporting those who illegally entered and reside in the U.S., especially the nearly half a million believed criminals.

Trump’s own most supportive demographic in recent polls has been Hispanics. Like all Americans, they are appalled by violent thugs and illegal aliens waving Mexican flags who have no wish to return to Mexico while burning American flags as they demand illegally to stay in the U.S.

The more the incoherent Left claimed the protests were “peaceful” and damned the Trump administration for sending them help, the more the violence continued.

And the more the public was relieved that Trump was trying to stop the riots.

Democrats currently lack sane and effective leaders.

But that is no excuse to swoon over creepy gang-bangers, spoiled-brat assassins, antisemitic burners of Jews, and illegal aliens breaking the law and damning America—while waving Mexican flags.

elon musk and donald trump

All of a sudden, Elon Musk started to attack the “big, beautiful bill” that’s now in the Senate because he said it spent too much money and it was contrary to all the work that he had done with his Department of Government Efficiency team. They were cutting spending. And yet, this was too generous, I suppose. It may increase the deficit, if the economy is not stimulated, as the bill intends.

But the point is that Donald Trump then said he was kind of bizarre, that he has a very thin margin in Congress and he was kind of surprised that his friend and ally would attack him that way. And then that started a cascade.

So, in the next 48 hours, we heard from Elon Musk that Donald Trump owed his victory to his efforts in Pennsylvania. He won the Electoral College, remember, beyond Pennsylvania. It was critical. But it was not sine qua non. He could have won without Pennsylvania, given the Electoral College margin.

And then he said, in addition, that Donald Trump might look at impeachment. That’s a little scary because if the Democrats win the midterms, that’s the first thing they’re going to do. So, that was kind of eerie. He also mentioned the Epstein files. He said he was going to disconnect his SpaceX Dragon component from the national space effort. I don’t think he’s going to do that. That would be nihilistic. And then Donald Trump replied that in kind but not nearly as intense as Elon Musk.

So, what was it all about? People have given all sorts of different explanations. One of them is that the new big, beautiful bill will phase out subsidies for all electric vehicles. And given Tesla’s attacks on—people attacking stations, chargers, dealers, individual drivers, the bad publicity the Democrats ginned up, he can’t afford that right now. He was very upset.

Maybe it was his nominee, he thought, to head NASA that the Trump people felt was—correctly—that was a Democrat and too far left.

And then there were Cabinet secretaries that said that Elon Musk was not just advising them where to cut but sort of demanding.

So, there was always a tense relationship that grew out of an unnatural relationship, in the sense that rarely—we haven’t seen anything like this since President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins, who was a personal adviser to FDR. Unlike Musk, he moved into the White House and basically crafted the whole detente with Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union, as a leftist himself.

So, it was a relationship that was very, very close in an unusual way and it was bound to have these tensions.

Then Musk said, you know, he started making these threats. But he can’t go anywhere because, remember, the California Coastal Commission, left-wing Coastal Commission, tried to stop additional rocket flights. The Left demonize him. They hate him for what he did with DOGE. He’s under assault on Tesla. His whole philosophy is entrepreneurism, lower taxes, less deregulation—not what the Left has. So, he’s frustrated because he knows he can’t go back to the Left. And yet, he’s angry about this bill. And then, when Trump sort of brushed it off, he went DEFCON 1.

Is there a hope to this relationship being healed? I think there is because it was historically rare to have a private citizen so close with the administration. But if you take that away, you can see they have the same enemies—the Left are delighted right now and they’re fueling this.

They have the same enemies and they have the same friends. They’re not perpendicular, they’re parallel. They have the same eventual visions of what America should be. They want less government, less deregulation, fewer taxes, a cultural counterrevolution, unleashing of entrepreneurial talent, a meritocracy, instead of DEI, closed border, legal-only immigration. So, they’re almost synonymous.

So, what happens to heal this rift? I think we all know what has to happen. Donald Trump is the most powerful man in the world. But unlike Elon Musk, he doesn’t run a private company or even a public-held company by fiat. Even though he has majorities in the House and Senate, he has to compromise. It’s like herding cats. He can’t get the bill he wants or his advisers want. So, this beautiful bill has elements on border security, on defense that are good. And it’s the beginning, not the end.

So, Musk needs to see that, as a CEO, he can rule by directive. He can rule by fiat. And in some ways, he has more power over his domain than Donald Trump—or any president does—over his. So, he has got to appreciate that.

The other thing that he has to appreciate, I think, is that Donald Trump is now in negotiations with three of the meanest SOBs in the world: Xi Jinping, the head of China; Vladimir Putin; and whoever the lunatic theocrats are running things in Iran.

He can’t afford to back down in a private dispute with an individual American, even one that’s the richest man in the world, because it would send a message to these three characters that if you press Donald Trump, you get him angry or you do something, he will back off. And the Left has been already using that mim.

So, what needs to happen is intermediaries come forward and they spell out the new relationship. It will not be as intense. It will not be as close. It will not be as frequent. And therefore, it will avoid these disruptions. But it will be based on mutual admiration, respect.

But more importantly, Elon Musk needs Donald Trump for the space exploration, for a fair shake on his business deals. And Donald Trump is aided by Elon Musk, especially the SpaceX. So, it’s a mutually beneficiary relationship, not just for both of them, but for us, the American people.

And make no mistake about it, the Democratic Party may be neutered, but it is not inert. It is waging potty-mouth videos, congressional disruptions, attacks on Teslas, huge donor-supplied lawfare going after the Trump agenda in these lower district courts. It is all geared up and frenzied for the midterms.

Now is the time for unity, not disunity. And the quicker these two very talented and powerful people can form a new relationship based not as intensely as the past but on mutual respect, the better it is for the country at large.

I’d like to comment on this strange, bizarre, surreal, sudden fallout—or was it so sudden—between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump.

All of a sudden, Elon Musk started to attack the “big, beautiful bill” that’s now in the Senate because he said it spent too much money and it was contrary to all the work that he had done with his Department of Government Efficiency team. They were cutting spending. And yet, this was too generous, I suppose. It may increase the deficit, if the economy is not stimulated, as the bill intends.

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

But the point is that Donald Trump then said he was kind of bizarre, that he has a very thin margin in Congress and he was kind of surprised that his friend and ally would attack him that way. And then that started a cascade.

So, in the next 48 hours, we heard from Elon Musk that Donald Trump owed his victory to his efforts in Pennsylvania. He won the Electoral College, remember, beyond Pennsylvania. It was critical. But it was not sine qua non. He could have won without Pennsylvania, given the Electoral College margin.

And then he said, in addition, that Donald Trump might look at impeachment. That’s a little scary because if the Democrats win the midterms, that’s the first thing they’re going to do. So, that was kind of eerie. He also mentioned the Epstein files. He said he was going to disconnect his SpaceX Dragon component from the national space effort. I don’t think he’s going to do that. That would be nihilistic. And then Donald Trump replied that in kind but not nearly as intense as Elon Musk.

So, what was it all about? People have given all sorts of different explanations. One of them is that the new big, beautiful bill will phase out subsidies for all electric vehicles. And given Tesla’s attacks on—people attacking stations, chargers, dealers, individual drivers, the bad publicity the Democrats ginned up, he can’t afford that right now. He was very upset.

Maybe it was his nominee, he thought, to head NASA that the Trump people felt was—correctly—that was a Democrat and too far left.

And then there were Cabinet secretaries that said that Elon Musk was not just advising them where to cut but sort of demanding.

So, there was always a tense relationship that grew out of an unnatural relationship, in the sense that rarely—we haven’t seen anything like this since President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins, who was a personal adviser to FDR. Unlike Musk, he moved into the White House and basically crafted the whole detente with Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union, as a leftist himself.

So, it was a relationship that was very, very close in an unusual way and it was bound to have these tensions.

Then Musk said, you know, he started making these threats. But he can’t go anywhere because, remember, the California Coastal Commission, left-wing Coastal Commission, tried to stop additional rocket flights. The Left demonize him. They hate him for what he did with DOGE. He’s under assault on Tesla. His whole philosophy is entrepreneurism, lower taxes, less deregulation—not what the Left has. So, he’s frustrated because he knows he can’t go back to the Left. And yet, he’s angry about this bill. And then, when Trump sort of brushed it off, he went DEFCON 1.

Is there a hope to this relationship being healed? I think there is because it was historically rare to have a private citizen so close with the administration. But if you take that away, you can see they have the same enemies—the Left are delighted right now and they’re fueling this.

They have the same enemies and they have the same friends. They’re not perpendicular, they’re parallel. They have the same eventual visions of what America should be. They want less government, less deregulation, fewer taxes, a cultural counterrevolution, unleashing of entrepreneurial talent, a meritocracy, instead of DEI, closed border, legal-only immigration. So, they’re almost synonymous.

So, what happens to heal this rift? I think we all know what has to happen. Donald Trump is the most powerful man in the world. But unlike Elon Musk, he doesn’t run a private company or even a public-held company by fiat. Even though he has majorities in the House and Senate, he has to compromise. It’s like herding cats. He can’t get the bill he wants or his advisers want. So, this beautiful bill has elements on border security, on defense that are good. And it’s the beginning, not the end.

So, Musk needs to see that, as a CEO, he can rule by directive. He can rule by fiat. And in some ways, he has more power over his domain than Donald Trump—or any president does—over his. So, he has got to appreciate that.

The other thing that he has to appreciate, I think, is that Donald Trump is now in negotiations with three of the meanest SOBs in the world: Xi Jinping, the head of China; Vladimir Putin; and whoever the lunatic theocrats are running things in Iran.

He can’t afford to back down in a private dispute with an individual American, even one that’s the richest man in the world, because it would send a message to these three characters that if you press Donald Trump, you get him angry or you do something, he will back off. And the Left has been already using that mim.

So, what needs to happen is intermediaries come forward and they spell out the new relationship. It will not be as intense. It will not be as close. It will not be as frequent. And therefore, it will avoid these disruptions. But it will be based on mutual admiration, respect.

But more importantly, Elon Musk needs Donald Trump for the space exploration, for a fair shake on his business deals. And Donald Trump is aided by Elon Musk, especially the SpaceX. So, it’s a mutually beneficiary relationship, not just for both of them, but for us, the American people.

And make no mistake about it, the Democratic Party may be neutered, but it is not inert. It is waging potty-mouth videos, congressional disruptions, attacks on Teslas, huge donor-supplied lawfare going after the Trump agenda in these lower district courts. It is all geared up and frenzied for the midterms.

Now is the time for unity, not disunity. And the quicker these two very talented and powerful people can form a new relationship based not as intensely as the past but on mutual respect, the better it is for the country at large.

Who’s Really Funding LA’s Anti-ICE Protests?

 

Los Angeles descended into turmoil this weekend as left-leaning activist organizations, funded by taxpayer dollars, are believed to have intensified protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). What started as a relatively small demonstration opposing the Trump administration’s crackdown on criminal illegal immigrants rapidly escalated into violent clashes with law enforcement. Groups such as the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), closely connected to Democratic leaders and allegedly supported by billionaires with foreign ties, have been fueling the unrest while claiming to defend illegal immigrants' so-called “rights.” 

The anti-ICE demonstrations in Los Angeles quickly spiraled into widespread chaos, with some participants throwing rocks at police, torching vehicles, and shouting inflammatory slogans. What began as a gathering of a few hundred soon swelled into thousands of rioters. Despite the escalating violence, Democratic leaders at the state level chose not to call for calm or de-escalation. Instead, their rhetoric appeared to encourage and fuel the aggressive actions of the crowd.

If you think you’ve read this story before, it’s because it’s very similar to the 2020 unrest that happened during the height of the Black Lives Matter movement, which turned out that many of those protests were dark-money funded. 

The anti-ICE protests quickly escalated beyond control, fueled in part by prominent left-wing community figures. Among them was SEIU California President David Huerta, who was detained for obstructing federal agents during an ICE operation. After his arrest, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the federal enforcement actions.

The anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles are backed by well-financed, ideologically motivated groups that support the violent actions on the ground. These demonstrations are part of a larger, organized effort to undermine law enforcement by framing it as a social justice and immigrant rights issue, effectively turning the city’s streets into arenas for advancing a radical political agenda.

CHIRLA Executive Director Angelica Salas publicly called for mass action against ICE during a press event that preceded a sharp rise in unrest and confrontations. In the same period, CHIRLA saw a significant boost in public funding, pulling in $34 million in government grants by the end of June 2023, mainly from California state sources. That figure nearly tripled the $12 million the group had received last year.

According to Data Republican, CHIRLA and the Party for Socialism and Liberation are among the NGOs involved in the current unrest. Both organizations have a history of organizing protests targeting President Donald Trump.

Between October 2021 and September 2024, CHIRLA was awarded nearly $450,000 in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants for citizenship education and training programs. When President Trump began his second term, approximately $100,000 remained from the grant. DHS's immigration division froze the remaining funds, prompting CHIRLA to file a lawsuit. In response, DHS canceled the contract, and the lawsuit was later withdrawn.

The California Department of Social Services, the California Arts Council, and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services provided CHIRLA funding. Additionally, the organization received a contract from the Department of Homeland Security, personally secured by Bass. With this funding, CHIRLA opened an “Immigrant Welcome and Empowerment Center” in downtown Los Angeles, which Bass toured in May 2024

The LA Chaos Is an Illusion and Trump Will Not Fall for It

 

Let’s understand what’s going on in Los Angeles because most people don’t. This is not a battle of cops versus rioters; it is a battle between narratives. Most people see regime media video of Third World savages waving the tacky banners of their garbage homelands, lighting fires, hassling cops, and doing other things consistent with being barbarians, and think that Los Angeles is in chaos and therefore get scared. The idea behind this color revolution – it is organized and planned, not spontaneous or genuine – is to intimidate normal people into submitting and embracing the politicians associated with its goals in the hopes that it will stop. This is the work of the Democrat Party; the rioters are its useful idiots, acting to support the party’s goals while its maintaining deniability. But this scheme only succeeds if the target is feckless and weak, which such targets usually are. Trump isn’t. He’s going to win this because he understands this fight better than his enemies. The chaos is an illusion; his strength is reality.

Remember, this is not a kinetic operation. A kinetic operation achieves its goal by the violence itself. Kinetic operations destroy enemy personnel, reduce enemy combat power, or conquer territory through physical destruction. But this is an information operation. It accomplishes its mission by influencing the population. The violence itself is not an end, but a means; the goal is to compel people to submit by convincing them to accept the narrative.

And the narrative here is that Los Angeles is in complete chaos as a result of Donald Trump attempting to enforce federal law, so to stop the violence, Donald Trump must be compelled to cease enforcing federal law. This, of course, would be a devastating neutering of Trump while strengthening the Democrats. They want to make Trump look weak and convince America to submit to their intimidation. But this plot only works if we accept the illusion they are presenting.

Remember, it’s an information operation. None of what you see on the regime media is real. Oh, they are burning a few cars and screaming and yelling and running around waving flags of garbage countries, but what does any of that actually do? Nothing. They can’t make anyone do anything. They are not eliminating any federal law-enforcement capabilities. They are not significantly hindering federal law enforcement operations. They are not holding significant territory over time. They’re simply acting out in front of the cameras to try to convince you that Trump is powerless. 

To some extent, this works. As a Southern Californian, I’ve been bombarded by people around the country asking me if I’m okay. Of course, I’m okay. I live among rich people who like their Chardonnay oaky and their illegal alien domestic help cheap and compliant. They won’t let that nonsense happen in my neighborhood. Hell, my liberal neighbors would call the local SWAT team in if poor people knocked over one of their “Hate Has No Home Here” signs. The violence is happening downtown, where practically nobody lives except bums and a few urban pioneers, as well as in some scruffy suburban cities on the east side of the metropolis. The impact on the daily life of 99% of people in Los Angeles is exactly zero. There are approximately 20 million people here. Maybe 5,000 have anything to do with this nonsense.

Again, it’s all an illusion designed to frighten and confuse you. That’s what an information operation does. It creates a narrative in people’s brains to achieve an effect it can’t achieve by force. These mobs don’t have the capacity to do much of anything except block some freeways and set a few cars on fire. If the cops and the Guard decided to get kinetic, they’d be wiped out faster than they could chant, “No justice, no arrrggggghhhh.” They aren’t a revolutionary army. They are a bunch of jerks pretending to be a threat.

And Trump has called their bluff. They were counting on what usually happens when the professional agitators in blue cities start getting frisky – they get catered to by the Democrats who run these urban areas. The Democrats react like a mommy while Trump reacts like a daddy. He’s not taking any of their guff, but what is important is that he understands that this is an information operation. He escalated by activating the California Army National Guard – I was a deputy commander of the brigade Trump called out and on the streets with the Army during the Los Angeles riots – but not so he could go kinetic. He’s not calling in the Guard or the Marines to bust heads or quell disorder, like we did in 1992. The guardsmen are basically providing point security around federal facilities to free up federal cops to go out and do cop things like arrest scumbags. 

What Trump is doing is messaging to the country that he’s not taking their crap. He’s not going to be intimidated. He’s not going to let this get out of control. The ones who are letting it get out of control are the Democrats who run California, like slack-jawed moron Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Gavin Hairstyle. Let’s understand the relationship between the riots and the Democrat establishment. The rioters are catspaws, cut-outs whose act of violence and intimidation support Democrat policies even as the Democrat establishment pretends to be upset about the chaos. However, the Democrats must at least appear to be trying to maintain order. Trump knows that is one of their weaknesses. He is sticking them with the consequences of their own disorder. Have you noticed how the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles sheriffs, and the California Highway Patrol are the ones dealing with riots? They are the ones who look powerless in the face of the rioters. This, in turn, makes Gavin Newsom and his pals look powerless – an image compounded when they whine and complain impotently about Trump calling up the Guard and Trump ignores them.

Advertisement

A color revolution information operation depends on an inept response from the targeted authority. Either the target of authority overreacts by going in and shooting a bunch of people, therefore appalling the weak-hearted citizenry, or it under-reacts and demonstrates its own powerlessness. But the color revolution fails when the target understands the game better than the leftists who initiated it. That’s what’s happened here. Donald Trump has projected strength, but not too much strength. He understands that normal American citizens are going to show absolutely no sympathy for the vandals, looters, illegal aliens, and other criminals, setting fires and looting 7-Elevens live on television. He has made Democrat officials look weak by ignoring their whining and forcing them to handle the part of the response that creates the worst optics.

At the same time, this situation provides an opportunity for Trump’s federal law enforcement to map out the network of organizations and individuals who coordinated and logistically supported rioting in Los Angeles. This isn’t a unique phenomenon. Leftist groups do this all around the country. Remember, time is on Trump’s side. Federal law enforcement can target the conspirators with criminal indictments and finally break this cycle. It can dismantle the infrastructure that allows these faux-spontaneous insurrections to pop up across the country. Offering rewards for specific criminals is another way to highlight to Americans that these people are criminals. And the situation also provides an opportunity to defund the government support to NGOs that launder government money to fund this kind of violence. The LA rioting has exposed our enemy to scrutiny, and we should take full advantage of that to crush it.

Trump is handling this just right. The battle isn’t on the streets of Los Angeles. The battle is in the hearts and minds of normal Americans. When normal Americans see burning and looting by degenerates, they are naturally frightened and appalled. What the leftists want to do, what the purpose of their information operation is, is to convince normal people that they have no choice but to submit because no one can protect them. Trump breaks that paradigm by providing an alternative – he will protect them, and therefore normal citizens don’t have to submit to the intimidation. All you need is someone willing to stand up to these dirtbags and it completely disrupts their info op.

The left has two main options going forward. One is to become even more violent and see if they can provoke an overreaction – remember, they don’t have the combat power to achieve anything by force. Even if they increase their level of violence, this is still an information operation. However, they risk overplaying their hand and justifying a forceful reaction by Trump. If some criminal – a substantial number of the rioters are not political activists but common street thugs – decides to shoot a fed and the feds shoot back, normal people are going to cheer.

The second and more likely course of action is for the word to go out to dial back the disorder. It’s not working. It’s not having the desired effect. It’s also hurting the Democrats, who tacitly support the violence but want to maintain distance from it. It’s their city that’s in chaos, not Trump’s. The Democrats are united in whining about Trump not submitting like cowards to the thugs, but all this is doing is making them look weak. It’s not Trump‘s forces that are getting pushed around by the rioters; it’s the Democrats’ local cops who are. The Democrats have had nothing but problems lately, and the last thing they needed was to have several days of news footage making them look ineffectual while also blowing the Elon vs. Donald cage match off the front pages.

The only real question is whether or not Donald Trump and his team planned this. It’s working to his advantage  – the Big Beautiful Bill debate just stopped being about saving a few pennies and became about saving our country from foreign invaders. You have to wonder whether the Trump 2.0 administration specifically choose a super leftist city to spin up ICE raids knowing that there would be a riotous backlash that they could then co-opt to message strength. Did they make a conscious decision to provide America a clear and unequivocal choice?

All I can say is that I hope so.

Biden’s Border Nihilism Will Live Long After He Is Gone

 

The spiteful open-borders legacy of Joe Biden will plague America for generations to come, long after the former president is a fading bad memory.

Somewhere between 10-12 million foreign nationals are believed to have entered the U.S. illegally under his watch, to add to the existing 12-20 million illegal aliens.

Almost all were unaudited.

They stormed the border for four years without background checks of the sort that American citizens must undergo to purchase a firearm or take out a loan.

At a time when citizens were expelled from the military for not submitting to the experimental mRNA COVID inoculations, millions of foreign nationals, with the Biden administration’s encouragement, crossed the southern border, exempt from any vaccination requirement or medical examination.

When Americans were required to present multiple forms of identification to apply for a mandatory “real ID” to fly in 2025, millions of illegal entrants were flown across the country, often stealthily and under the cover of night, without any valid ID at all.

On some days, the Trump administration has managed to deport 800 of Biden’s illegal aliens.

But 10 times that many entered illegally each day under Biden.

Trump’s border patrol would have to deport over 8,000 people every day of his four-year tenure just to undo what Biden wrought by his dismantling of federal immigration law.

Some 500,000 illegal entrants are believed to have criminal records—a number greater than the population of Oakland, California.

Indeed, new reports relate almost every day that another illegal alien has murdered, raped, or assaulted an American citizen.

The culpable Left often champions violent illegal alien criminals facing deportation. Their apparent assumption is that hurting Trump politically justifies hurting Americans even more by protecting violent illegal alien criminals instead of sending them home.

Thousands of these unknown criminals are deadly land mines waiting to explode.

Yet the Biden effort to destroy or subvert immigration law transcends just demolishing the southern border.

There are nearly 300,000 Chinese nationals in American universities, the vast majority admitted without serious background checks.

They are welcomed by elite campuses because they pay the full cost and at a premium, with few questions asked about why exactly they came or what they are doing.

No wonder, then, that in the last decade, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government is reported to have trained and graduated hundreds of Chinese nationals who were either Communist Party members or the children of prominent Chinese communist apparatchiks.

In other words, at a time when the U.S. is locked in an escalating Cold War with the People’s Republic of China, our universities find great profit in enrolling and educating the communist elite who threaten Taiwan, imprison and oppress the Uyghurs, jail Hong Kong dissidents, and send both bio- and agro-terrorists into the U.S.

Not a day went by during the last two years without Middle Eastern, pro-Hamas visa students on some campus swarming students in libraries, assaulting and bullying Jews, trashing iconic buildings, illegally camping out in student quads, and screaming to bring the intifada home to the U.S.

Neither the Biden administration nor spineless college presidents took any action, despite such flagrant violations of both the terms and spirit of student visas.

Most recently, Yunqing Jian, a 33-year-old Chinese national with ties to the University of Michigan, was arrested as an “agro-terrorist.”

The mission of Jian, along with his girlfriend, was to seed toxic fungus into Midwestern farmland as a way of destroying the American food supply and thereby starve his hosts.

Sometimes the baleful Biden immigration inheritance was simply a matter of allowing “tourists” and “visitors” to stay far after their visas had expired—without consequences.

So, for example, Egyptian national and terrorist, Mohammed Sabry Soliman, along with his entire family, deliberately overstayed their visas. They were all residing here illegally when Soliman firebombed Jews, crying out “Free Palestine” as he tried to burn them up.

Americans overwhelmingly polled against this Biden border nihilism. Indeed, the House impeached his henchman, Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Yet Biden, or his handlers in the shadows, would not stop destroying the borders and immigration law.

So why would a president deliberately cause such mayhem that will cost hundreds of lives and billions of dollars in the years to come?

Was the reason Biden’s characteristic incompetence or dementia?

Or did Biden simply want to alter the demography to find a constituency for his otherwise unpopular agendas?

Did he wish to grow the welfare state?

Was Biden hoping to expand the DEI agenda by bringing in the poor and supposedly oppressed as new fodder in the Left’s Marxist binary of victimized versus victimizer?

No one knows why Biden did it, only that he did — and we will suffer his nihilist legacy for years to come.

The Left Is Alienating Its Minority Base

 

’d like to talk about a more sensitive topic today, and that’s this new appearance or this growing—I would call it—reverse racism or racism among some left-wing elite black leaders, politicians, celebrities. I’ll give you a few examples.

Not long ago Susan Rice, the former top official in the Obama administration, was removed from the Defense Policy Board. That’s a group of grandees that advise the Defense Department. They’re political appointments. And traditionally, when a new president comes in, they get rid of most of the prior Defense Policy Board because they feel they’re partisans.

And in the case of Susan Rice, she was appointed in a late appointment by then-President Joe Biden, who pretty much wiped out all of the Trump appointments. So, her dismissal by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was not unusual.

And yet, she fired back at him and said he was dumb as a rock and ultra-MAGA. But what was interesting, she said, “white male, cisgender.” In other words, she attacked his race. And she said her administration would’ve fired him for the Signal chat scandal. But of course, she was the one that came out on Sunday talk shows and lied five times about the disaster in Benghazi, among other things later in her career. But why inject race into it?

At almost the same period, we had a number of Afrikaners—I should say a very small number, about 60 people—asked for refugee status, felt they had been endangered by black-on-white violence, which is demonstrable and beyond controversy in South Africa. And President Donald Trump allowed them to come in as refugees. And of course, during the prior administration, thousands of people came in as refugees. But because, apparently, they were white, this caused a storm of criticism.

The Episcopalian Church said they would no longer help with refugees because this was racist. Don Lemon went on a profanity-ridden rant about how this is horrible that these white people were coming in, this is disgusting, you shouldn’t be able to do that.

Not too long ago, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, talked about how the party might have to nominate “white boys.” Using that “boy,” that’s sort of a deprecatory term that has racial implications. Remember Joe Biden called two of his aides who are African American “boy.” That’s a very prejudicial term to use. And yet, she was using it in the reverse fashion for so-called whites.

And at the same time she was doing this, another tape surfaced from Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., where she said white men were the most likely terrorists and killers in America. That’s demonstrably untrue.

So, what am I getting at? I’m getting at the elite—the elite in politics and celebrities—are using this idea of white, white, white, white in a prejudicial manner. It’s very ironic because it’s exactly what we were evolving away from in pursuit of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “content of our character, not color of our skin.” And apparently, they believe because they’re African Americans or they’re left-wing that it’s OK to stigmatize somebody by their race. But of course, it’s not.

And here’s my point about this entire discussion. Lately, the Rasmussen polls—who have been very accurate, they were in the 2024 election and they are now—they surveyed the first 100 days of the Trump administration. And they found that—contrary to most of what, candidly, are left-wing polls—that Donald Trump had a positive appraisal by most people.

But here’s my point. Sixty-two percent of those who were surveyed that were Hispanic expressed approval. African Americans were about 39%. And Hispanics were higher than whites.

So, what am I getting at? You have two centrifugal forces at a time when African Americans and Hispanics are considering economics, cost of living, real issues, and they consider them more important than their superficial appearance.

You have a panicky elite on the Left, who, let’s be candid, they have been the primary beneficiaries of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Diversity, equity, and inclusion did not help the inner city. It didn’t stop the crime rate. It didn’t increase the per capita income. It did help a professional class.

But my point is this, while the professional class is obsessed with race and chasing white racist unicorns, the majority of the Hispanic community and a near majority of the black community have moved beyond the elite.

This is gonna have political repercussions in the future because the Democratic Party, the more they pound this tired, weary racial mantra, the more their constituents—they think they’re appealing to—are moving on.

Trump’s Second Term Gains Momentum as Economy Soars, Borders Tighten

We’re at four months now in the new Trump second administration. And a strange thing has happened.

If you look at the polls, after diving for President Donald Trump with the announcement that he was going to subject certain countries to high tariffs—which panicked the stock market. Now, the stock market’s almost recovered, or has recovered, all of its lost. It went down a little bit when Trump said he was going to continue the tariffs, to force the European Union to have reciprocal treatment toward the United States.

But nevertheless, Trump in the RealClearPolitics averages—which to be fair, have a preponderance of left-wing polls—is still only about a point, point and a half down. But in other polls, Rasmussen, he’s either even or he is a couple of points ahead. And yet, all of the media and all of the major organs on the Left, but even in the center and Right—The Wall Street Journal, to take another example we’ve discussed—they have been uniformly negative.

So, how in the world is Donald Trump—and Donald Trump has not been reticent. He has tweeted all sorts of things about, you know, Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift and Canada—things that were very controversial. How can he be almost equal and much higher than he was at his first term at this time? And the answer is twofold.

No. 1 is what he’s doing. Every time people say we’re headed for a recession or his trade war is gonna tank the economy, data comes out. This week, it was the corporate profits were unusually high, strong. It came out that we’re not in a housing recession, that housing sales are steady. Inflation is down. Energy prices are way down. Economic growth is up. Joblessness is down. So, that is one reason.

The second is Donald Trump has been touring the world. And you can call it mercantilism but essentially, the Trump doctrine is we’re not going to get into optional military engagements on the ground anywhere and we’re going to have our relations be transactional. So, even our enemies—to the degree it’s even possible—we’re gonna try to find some mechanism by which we can stop wars. Maybe rare earth mineral corridor in Ukraine or maybe we’re dangling an end of sanctions for Iran—I don’t think that’s going to work.

But the point is people appreciate the idea that Trump, first, is trying to exhaust peaceful avenues before he uses force. And he’s trying to address the theater wars that former President Joe Biden left him in Ukraine and the Middle East.

The economy is strong. The border is 99% closed. We’ve gone from over 150,000 entries down to less than 8,000, in many places fewer. The wall is going to be continued. The Border Patrol is increased. The deportations, despite the court orders, continue.

So, the things that he’s doing are very popular, especially to the working classes: black, white, Hispanic. They like cheap gas prices. They like news that there’s going to be $8 to $10 trillion of investment and new jobs and assembly manufacturing in the United States. They like the idea that we’re cutting unnecessary funds for government and we’re not touching Social Security. They like the idea that Trump is trying to reduce taxes on the middle class in terms of Social Security or tips. But there’s another facet. And that is not Trump, but the people who despise Trump and are attacking Trump.

When the electorate looks at that and they say, “Well, Trump—I like everything he’s doing but I don’t like what he said about Canada. It just kind of bothers me.” Or, “I don’t like him lowering himself to attacking Bruce Springsteen, in kind.” Yes. But what is the alternative?

Well, the alternative is the Left is glorifying a murderer, Luigi Mangione. And the campuses will not, cannot, do not want to stop the antisemitism. So, we see foreign guests with masks on who continue to use violence and vandalize our campuses. Now we have two wonderful Israeli citizens who have been murdered. And doesn’t seem that anybody in the core base of the Democratic Party is objecting at all.

This comes on the heels of attacks on Tesla. This comes on the heels of this strange Democratic reaction to Trump, where they use almost pornographic language: “s—,” the F-word. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz can’t give a speech without either comparing Trump to Hitler or calling him some pejorative.

The result of all this is when they look to the Democratic alternative, there is no alternative. There’s no explanation why they opened the border. There’s no explanation, opposition to what Trump is doing. Why aren’t they saying, “We like an open border. Stop it, Donald Trump”? They’re not even doing that.

They’re not presenting any positive, constructive alternative. There is no shadow government. There is nobody in the Democratic Party that is popular. Not Tim Walz. Not former Vice President Kamala Harris. Not Sen. Chuck Schumer. Not even Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Especially not Rep. Jasmine Crockett. I mean popular to the American people in general.

And so, when you add the fact that the economic news is pretty good and there’s a lot of initiatives on the horizon—peace initiatives, foreign investment initiatives, trade initiatives. And when you look at the people around Trump—Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—they’re very good. And when they go before Congress, they’re calm, they’re rational, they’re data-driven. The Democratic senators who press them and inquire of them and mock them are usually poorly prepared, hysterical, angry, and make fools of themselves.

Add it all up: Things are going pretty good in the country. Donald Trump is a whirlwind. He’s staging a counterrevolution. And most of the issues that he’s trying to undo of the progressive project, the public supports him.

And his Democratic opposition—four months into his tenure—has still completely lost its mind and not only does not offer an alternative agenda, but personally, emotionally, psychologically puts people off. They do not like the way that they’re talking. They do not like the way they’re acting. And they don’t like them in general.

The Quiet Economic Boom of Trump 2.0

 

The Trump budget is making its way through the Senate. And people on both sides of the issue of fiscal sobriety are arguing because the Biden deficit, which is somewhere between $1.9 trillion and $2.1 trillion, doesn’t seem to be radically reduced, given the DOGE cuts are offset by not cutting other programs that came in under Biden.

The Build Back Better and New Green Deal—all of that stuff is not radically cut. And more importantly, there are some tax cuts—things like taxes on tips, the SALT state tax deductions—that suggest that either there won’t be this sizable budget deficit reduction, as promised by the Trump administration, or it won’t occur until later on, or it could get bigger.

But there is a wild card here. And consider that in March through April, all the way into May, we had some monthly data. And income—real income—is substantially up. So is the savings rate. Energy prices are down. The inflation rate came in at April at 2.1%. The economy, according to the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta, will not grow at 3.8%, but it could, they think, at an annualized rate of 4.6%.

That’s critical, because in a $33 billion-plus economy, if you get two or three points of additional economic growth, then obviously, you’re going to have more federal revenue. It could be $200 or $300 billion more.

Also, people discounted the Trump tariffs. They said, either one of two things would happen. They would either, and believe it or not, they said the trade deficit might increase because of retaliatory tariffs that would increase faster than ours or decrease trade. But we might be in a recession.

And yet, when you look at the April data, the $160 billion monthly trade deficit has been halved. It’s incredible. It’s almost like the story on the border: That we went from 10,000 people a day to virtually nobody.

So, what does all this mean? We saw these gyrations in the stock market. We read The Wall Street Journal every day: recession, slow growth, market uncertainty, trade wars, recession, but if you actually look at the data, two things pop out at you.

The economy is doing very, very well. And a lot of it is the expectation of the things that are in process. The $10 trillion of foreign investment. The extensions of the tax cuts. Incentives for investment in the new budget. And so, this is completely unknown territory. If Donald Trump were to get—as Ronald Reagan did in the first half of 1984, he got up to an annualized rate of 7%. Especially in the latter part. If he were to get 4.6% or 5%, then this mythical idea that we all discounted, that you can grow your way out of deficits, it wouldn’t quite be realized but it would really help. And that $1.9 to $2.1 trillion deficit could go down substantially.

All of us never believed supply side will solve the problem. It won’t solve the problem without physical cuts and discipline. But it will do a lot for the economy.

And this is emblematic of this first mysterious four months of Donald Trump, when people said that Donald Trump could shut the border down, nobody believed him.

When people said that he could deal with the universities, and then Harvard had a lot of exposure, violating the Supreme Court’s rulings, not reporting Chinese and Middle East money, overcharging the government. And yet, all of this exposure that’s happening on the campus is enlightening the American people about issues they didn’t think was possible, just in the first 120 or 130 days of this administration.

So, what’s the bottom line? What am I getting at? There are revolutionary—maybe counter-revolutionary—developments going on at the border, going on with the universities. But especially with the economy. It’s being rebooted. It’s being redirected in ways that economists are not even able to figure out because we haven’t done this before. And the net result might be that we’re going to make progress, both in the expansion of the economy and through growth in federal revenues and cut down these deficits.

How the ‘Pravda-Like’ Press Distorts the News

 

So much has been said about the media, the mainstream media, the legacy media. There’s not really much to add because we all know that it’s not really a disinterested media but it’s kind of a Pravda-like propaganda organ. I’ll give you a few examples.

More recently, when Cyril Ramaphosa came to the White House, the president of South Africa, did you see the word “ambush”? It was in every mainstream paper, every left-wing website, every radio—NPR, PBS, CBS, MSNBC. It’s like the Democratic operatives issue a Pravda-like order and then these mindless people just say, “Okay, today’s talking points are…”

He met President Donald Trump. He wasn’t really surprised that Trump was going to confront him because he bragged that he was gonna confront Trump. There was no secret place. It wasn’t a sudden, unexpected attack from a secret place—the definition of an ambush. Yet, it was ”ambush,” “ambush,” “ambush,” “ambush.”

And when some questions arose about the visit, it was just typical. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, fielded a question from an NBC journalist. She was very angry because Donald Trump mentioned to President Ramaphosa, “See this picture of a thousand graves.” She said, “Well, he was lying. There weren’t graves.” And the press secretary replied back, “They were commemorations.” Each one of those crosses represents a dead South African who was murdered by virtue of his race. And she said, “Yes, but it’s not…”

So what they were arguing about—NBC—was semantics that Trump had improperly—and he had improperly—confused “grave” with “cenotaph,” a cenotaph. That’s “kenos” in Greek, meaning “empty.”

So, these crosses were not on top of a dead person but they represented a dead person. But NBC was so fixated on embarrassing the president that they didn’t even want to discuss the fact that there were a thousand crosses and they did represent individual lives destroyed because of their race. But she just wanted to make the point that you could nullify all of that and excuse it by saying they were not graves but cenotaphs. And there you have it.

So lately, we see it everywhere. And we had the tragic killing of Yaron Lischinsky and his fiancee, Sarah Milgrim, the two Jewish diplomatic workers in Washington. And what was interesting about it—I’ve been reading the mainstream media accounts. So, Elias Rodriguez goes in there, shoots—empties a gun—21 times, murders this wonderful couple, and then he yells, “Free Palestine.”

And they just can’t resist. They have the description of the shooting. They mention who he was. They don’t mention the left-wing groups that he worked with or the funding that came from places like the MacArthur Foundation that funded groups that he used to work for. Or they don’t mention the fact that his father attended Congress as a guest of a Democratic congressman.

But they do do this: About eight, usually about eight paragraphs down, they say, “And tensions rose because of the Israeli assault on Gaza and the thousands of deaths.” In other words, they’re trying to contextualize the murder by saying that this person was driven to it in the manner, perhaps, like Luigi Mangione, who shot the UnitedHealthcare executive. In other words, there’s always a contextualization.

And when you start to add all of this stuff up, it all is in an atmosphere of Jake Tapper co-authoring this “Original Sin” book when he was one of the principle people who promulgated the idea that former President Joe Biden was completely fit and anybody who questioned it—Lara Trump was a good example—he demonized and tried to destroy on national TV. Now he’s gonna make millions saying, “I didn’t do it. They did.”

And it’s an indictment of the Biden circle, who knew that he was cognitively challenged. We knew it. I shouldn’t even say they knew. Everybody knew it. But they were prevented from commenting or they were demonized if they did comment by the media and by the Biden team.

And this is on top of the fact that the media never even looked at the released records. They never even asked a question—as they did of Donald Trump’s cognitive abilities. They never said, “Did he have a PSA test?” Trump, it’s on his medical records. Former President Barack Obama did. They didn’t ask any of these things.

And now they’re trying to say, “We were hoodwinked.” No, you weren’t hoodwinked. You were operating in the same fashion you did to promulgate the Russian collusion lie that you never apologized for, the laptop disinformation lie that you’ve never apologized for, the 51 intelligence authorities that you never apologized for, the partnering of the FBI with social media to censor the news before the 2020 election that you never talked about.

This is a pattern. And it won’t stop with this. And the result is you wonder why, whether when you look at liberal polls or liberal media, nobody has any confidence anymore, nobody trusts you.

Don’t you understand that when you say, “Ambush,” “ambush,” “ambush,” “ambush,” or you ask questions that don’t even get to the point, just a matter of semantics, we know what you’re doing? You’re trying to gin up momentum, enthusiasm for a cause, a left-wing cause that 50% of the population just doesn’t support.

Trump’s Message to Putin: You Blew It

 

here’s been a new development, a new phase in the Ukraine war.

I know we’ve talked about it before, but more recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin has escalated his attacks. Not so much on the battlefront per se, but on civilian targets that he is hitting with missiles and drones as far west as Kyiv. And this has solicited an angry response from President Donald Trump.

I think the subtext of Donald Trump is:

Well, wait a minute, Vladimir. I have sort of told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy not to ask for so much and be willing to have a ceasefire. And we have a deal in the works. And now you’re kind of fouling it all up.

And the deal was, pretty much, you’re gonna get the Donbas and Crimea and institutionalize it. And we’re gonna get some kind of arrangement to arm Ukraine, but it will not be officially in NATO. And somewhere where the battle line is today we’ll have a ceasefire. And then there will be an economic zone of rare minerals. It’ll be kind of a tripwire. And out of that general framework we can have a peace conference and hammer out the details.

But now you’re doing this escalation that’s kind of fouling up my dreams of solving the problem that I inherited from former President Joe Biden.

And Trump is kind of exasperated. He said, you know, Vladimir’s acting “crazy.” The Left went kind of ecstatic. And they said, “See, see, see, see. Trump finally came around to our point of view. He now agrees with us. It was all Putin’s fault. And he stopped appeasing Putin. And now he’s gonna follow our lead.”

I don’t think that’s quite what’s actually happened. What Trump is really doing is saying to the world:

If we had followed your lead and put pressure only on Vladimir Putin, we would’ve never got a deal because the Russians would be seen as sort of sympathetic to parts of the world. And they would’ve said the United States was too pro-Ukrainian. But I came in and was willing to give him a chance. And now the world sees that he doesn’t want that chance. And the world sees that he’s blowing a deal.

The next question is: Why would he do that? Why would Vladimir Putin pass up a deal?

And I think the answer is that he has to account for a war that he preempted and started that was designed to take all of Ukraine by decapitating Kyiv in February of 2022. Fast forward, there’s probably 1.5 million dead, wounded, and lost—on both sides—and climbing. But the majority of those losses are Russian. There’s probably 1 million dead Russians, wounded Russians, or missing Russians.

And Vladimir Putin—although he is a dictator with absolute power, no dictator is quite with absolute power—he has to account, informally, to a complex of oligarchs, wealthy oligarchs, bureaucrats, high-level bureaucrats, and the military. And there is a point in which he has to show that what he has done in Ukraine is worth 1 million dead, wounded, and missing. And he thinks he’s not there yet.

In other words, he’s going back to them and saying, “Only Vladimir institutionalized the acquisition of the Donbas and Crimea. Which, by the way, I got for you in 2014. And now there’s no question that they’re part of Russia. Only Vladimir got Ukraine out of NATO. Only Vladimir advanced 40 to 60 miles westward from the Donbas and Crimea.”

And I think he thinks that complex that I just mentioned as saying, “You mean you basically didn’t give us anything you. We had the Donbas. We had Crimea. We were already pushing a little bit westward. We knew they were Ukraine. Europe didn’t want them in NATO. United States didn’t want a NATO. So, what did you really give us, Vladimir? You’re not far west enough. Now, you go back over there and you’ve got to justify a million casualties. And there’s not much on the battlefield.”

So, I think what Vladimir Putin thinks is that he’s going to continue the war; continue the terror campaign; get greater concessions from the Europeans, the Americans, and the Ukrainians; and move the battle lines a little bit to the West.

And I think he’s sorely mistaken. He’s misreading Donald Trump. Because the reason he did not invade in 2017 and 2021—of those four recent administrations, that was the only one he did not. He did not invade during Donald Trump’s administration. But he did invade a neighbor during former Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden’s tenure.

In other words, he saw—in a way that he does not see now—that Donald Trump is very unpredictable and very erratic, in some ways, that it’s beneficial in the making of foreign policy.

And if he continues to go westward or continues to have this terror campaign, I think he will see that Donald Trump will be able to hold his MAGA coalition together and continue to arm Ukraine. And the Europeans will continue, probably, to arm them as well. And this, the quagmire, will only escalate. And he will not be able to knock Ukraine out of the war and it will be increasingly difficult for him to justify any continuation to his constituents.

If I was Vladimir Putin, I would cut a deal today. And then I would resume natural gas and oil shipments to Europe, I would open the economy back up, and I would tell the Russian people what you did.

I don’t think it would be quite accurate, but you could tell them: “Only because of me, Crimea forever is where it belongs, in Russia. The same as Donbas. And I stood up to the West and said, ‘No NATO.’ And I won this war.”

And that’s a lot better—it’s not a good scenario, but it’s a lot better than another Stalingrad or Verdun or Somme for the next two years for Russia.

The Lasting Damage of the George Floyd Riots

 

This week was the fifth anniversary, May 25, of the tragic death of George Floyd.

It seems that it just happened but it was actually five years ago. And almost everything that has transpired after that in terms of racial relations has been disastrous. And now, maybe at the end of five years, we can look back with a little bit more circumspection and see what actually happened.

George Floyd was a career felon. He was in the process of trying to pass off counterfeit bills. He was reportedly under the influence of severe, powerful drugs, perhaps fentanyl, in addition. He may have been suffering from post-COVID-19 syndromes. He had a heart condition. One of his prior felonies was putting a gun to a woman’s belly in a home invasion.

Nevertheless, when he tried to pass this counterfeit bill, the store owner called the Minneapolis police. They tried to arrest him. He resisted arrest. He was a very big man. And then Officer Derek Chauvin, who was supposedly an expert in techniques that were institutionalized by the Minneapolis Police Department, unfortunately, put his knee on George Floyd’s neck. And there were varying autopsies. One said that killed him. Another one, perhaps, said it didn’t.

But nevertheless, the expression on Officer Chauvin’s face was frozen into eternity. And that sparked the idea that he was a white policeman conducting a typical murder of an unarmed black suspect. And what followed was near mayhem.

Officer Chauvin, remember, was convicted of second- or third-degree murder. He was sentenced to 20 years. His appeals have run out with the Supreme Court. He’ll be in prison probably for much of his life. George Floyd, of course, died at the hospital or on the way to the hospital.

And what happened immediately was this huge riot, five years ago. Unlike the Jan. 6 riot, this thing went on for the end of May, June, July, August, September. Remember, former Vice President Kamala Harris said it wasn’t going to stop, nor should it stop. It’s going to keep going to Election Day. She said that, of course. Then later, when called on it, she said she didn’t mean the violent aspect.

But violent aspects there were. There was $2 billion in damage. There was a police precinct burned to the ground in Minneapolis. There was a federal courthouse that was burned. There was a historic St. John’s Church—across from the White House—that was torched. A mob tried to go into the White House grounds and reach the president.

But even more serious than all of that, we were coming off COVID-19. People had been in a lockdown. There had been a national quarantine. And their news was from the television in an isolated situation in their own home with no human interaction.

So, these riots were kind of an expression of breaking out. And more importantly, they were subject to rumor, suspicion, lies. And one of the great lies was that George Floyd was iconic or emblematic of young black men, middle-aged black men that were systematically being killed while unarmed by the police. That was not true. The Washington Post even said it wasn’t.

That year there were only 18 black males who were stopped by the police in the entire population of 340 million people. This year there were only 10. It was proportionate to the number of people by race who were stopped by the police, 11 million or 12 million each year.

Professor Ibram X. Kendi and professor Robin DiAngelo, or journalist DiAngelo, they created this idea of systemic racism. And you had to be racist in an anti-racist fashion. In other words, the only way to deal with this systemic racism was to be pro-black.

And what followed then was a defunding of the police. It caused a huge spike in crime. I think 20,000 murders in 2020. The Black Lives Matter group was energized. And now as we look back at it, the architects of that movement have ensconced with the money. It has collapsed. The women that were in charge have, apparently, embezzled the money or taken it. They have nice homes. But it’s an inert group.

It had a lot of other deleterious effects. Universities trying to get in on the virtue signaling and performance-art caring dropped the SAT. They dropped the comparative ranking of high school GPA. They dropped meritocracy. They started really enforcing DEI, in the sense of loyalty owes—you have to show us that you’re loyal to the concept of DEI, that you’ve done something for it, or we’re not going to hire you. And the universities then went into something that we could call repertory admissions.

Fast forward five years, looking back, and looking at all the damage of the downtowns in America—many of them that were destroyed. Today they have not recovered, in many cases. Look at the intense dissension and acrimony and racial relations that related to it. Look at the universities who were chastised by the Supreme Court for using race in a racist fashion in admissions. They’ve been discredited. And the people who capitalize on the death of George Floyd are, for the most part, discredited.

And the country now is learning its lessons. It’s trying to find a sober solution, a reaction. I think they’re trying—we’re trying to come to a conclusion. Why in the world did we go completely collectively insane? And the result of that is we don’t think the quarantines were a good idea. They were more injurious to the country than was COVID-19 itself.

We don’t think and we know that the police should be defunded. Much less are they attacking black unarmed males. Just the opposite is happening.

We look at the career of professor Kendi, he went through $45 million at Boston University for an anti-racism center. And apparently, the money was squandered. I mentioned the BLM squandering.

So, we’re getting back to the idea that, when you use race in any fashion, for bias or preference, it’s racist. It doesn’t matter what professor Kendi says or it doesn’t matter about the reactions to the death of George Floyd, it’s racist.

As far as George Floyd is concerned, had Officer Chauvin not had that expression on his face and had he lifted his knee up when George Floyd said he couldn’t breathe, this entire catastrophe probably could have been avoided—or maybe not because there were people who were looking for an occasion like this to spread mayhem and to recalibrate race relations in the United States into what they would call anti-racism. Which means it’s permissible for someone who considers themself a victim to be a victimizer. If you think you’re a victim of racism, then you can use racial preferences yourself with impunity.

In any case, it was a sad chapter in American history.