How Biden's Border Policies Burned America

posted by Kevin Finn at American Thinker 

Independence Day is approaching! It's time to start planning our celebrations.  We'll be cranking up the barbecue grills, waving our American flags and anticipating parades and fireworks.

So who do we invite over to celebrate the day with us? We could easily invite a few of our neighbors, close friends and relatives. But how about if we change things up a little? Why don't we go downtown and invite some people we know nothing about, who don't speak our language and who very likely mean us harm?

What's the worst that could happen?

We're seeing what can happen in cities all across America right now. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and whoever was running the country during the last administration welcomed millions of individuals from all over the world, many from countries openly hostile to the U.S. We've seen the tragic deaths of young women like Jocelyn Nungaray and Laken Riley, we've seen apartment buildings taken over by Tren de Aragua and in Los Angeles we're seeing riots, looting and vandalism.

Why would anyone in government intentionally allow such things to happen? The answer is complex and multifaceted, involving policy decisions, geopolitical factors, and domestic political dynamics. It's important to examine the establishment narrative and avoid speculation beyond what’s supported.

The House Committee on Oversight reported over 10 million border encounters nationwide under the Biden-Harris administration, with 2.5 million apprehensions at the southwest border in 2023 alone and 1.7 million “known gotaways” since 2021. They called it "the worst border crisis in U.S. history."

Critics argue that this reflected a deliberate policy shift away from deterrent-focused measures. The Biden administration suggested that the surge resulted from global migration trends, regional instability and inherited challenges, not deliberate policy choices. The facts tend to support the former.

Biden took over 535 executive actions on immigration, surpassing the first Trump administration’s four-year total. These included: 

-           Terminating Remain-in-Mexico

-           Cancelling Safe third country agreements

-           Ordering border-wide catch-and-release

-           Freeing adult single crossers for first time in U.S. history

-           Releasing illegals from Mexico at scale for first time in history

-           Ending Title 42

-           Ending DNA testing to disrupt fake families, child-trafficking

-           Ceasing prosecutions of illegal immigrants

-           Limiting ICE's ability to arrest and deport certain non-citizens

-           Ending worksite enforcement

-           Ending expanded expedited removal in the interior

-           Ending border wall construction

The Biden administration framed these actions as efforts to create a more humane immigration system, but critics argued they signaled leniency and encouraged more crossings.

The administration expanded humanitarian parole programs, allowing over 1 million migrants, including tens of thousands from Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Haiti, to enter legally via programs like CBP One (Customs and Border Protection) or private sponsorship. The goal of these programs is to reduce illegal crossings by providing lawful pathways. The downside is that they tended to facilitate entry without sufficient vetting.

Ironically, under Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the CBP One app is now being used to facilitate self-deportation. The app now offers illegals a $1,000 cash incentive upon confirmed departure, free travel assistance and documentation, forgiveness of failure-to-depart fines, potential future legal immigration opportunities, and de-prioritization for ICE enforcement actions.

Biden issued new asylum rules in 2023, removing eligibility for people illegally entering the U.S. without seeking protection in transit countries. This caused the backlog in immigration courts to grow to a record 3.7 million cases, with many migrants released into the U.S. pending hearings years away.

Biden repeatedly spoke of addressing the “root causes” of migration, such as poverty and violence in Central America and committed $4 billion to regional development. The administration also extended Temporary Protected Status to 1.7 million potential beneficiaries from 16 countries, including some hostile to the U.S., like Venezuela. He justified this as humanitarian but it was generally viewed as being overly permissive.

We're witnessing unprecedented global displacement, with some naming “four failed states in our hemisphere alone”. Migration is skyrocketing from countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua, which have adversarial relations with the U.S. Issues such as economic collapse and political repression in these nations have fueled outflows. For example, Venezuela’s crisis under the Maduro dictatorship led to millions fleeing.

Biden’s focus on humanitarian pathways, like parole for Venezuelans and Haitians, lacked robust vetting which raised concerns about security risks from hostile nations. To say that programs like CBP One, which processed 813,000 migrants into the U.S. were abused or insufficiently monitored is quite the understatement. For example, one bullet point in the report reads, "The documents show 278,431 appointments scheduled, with 266,846 of these individuals released into the interior."

Frightening.

Some sources suggest Biden’s policies aimed to boost undocumented populations for future congressional apportionment, as the Census counts all residents. Is it conceivable that the Left might engage in demographic engineering for electoral gain? While it’s certainly plausible, even likely, this theory lacks direct evidence yet it reflects widespread distrust in policy intent.

The Biden administration’s policies reversed Trump's restrictions, and the scale of arrivals indicates calculated intent or scandalous miscalculation. The inclusion of migrants from hostile countries like Venezuela or Iran may have stemmed from humanitarian goals, but lax vetting and overwhelmed systems raised legitimate security concerns. Claims of deliberate sabotage or treason, as seen in social media posts, are speculative and lack evidence, but they reveal public frustration with the crisis.

The reality, as shown in the House Committee’s fact sheet, contradicts Kamala Harris’s 2022 claim of a “secure border.” Biden's policies loosened enforcement and contributed to a record surge. However, global factors, not just U.S. policy, also contributed to migration from hostile nations. The administration’s later actions, like the 2024 asylum restrictions, show attempts to curb flows, though with limited success. The phrase “too little too late” comes to mind.

Biden’s allowance of unprecedented illegal immigration, including from hostile countries, likely results from a mix of humanitarian policy goals, intentional reversal of Trump’s restrictions, and global migration pressures. These were worsened by systemic weaknesses like court backlogs and insufficient vetting. While critics allege political motives like electoral advantage, evidence is inconclusive. Nevertheless, Biden’s 535 actions to weaken border security reflect a conscious intent to allow unchecked entry. The border crisis, with over 10 million encounters, highlights a failure to align rhetoric with effective enforcement, diverging from the stricter frameworks once advocated by Democrats like Obama and Clinton.

Which begs the question – what now? President Trump recently mentioned complaints from farmers and hotel managers who claim the deportations are costing them workers. It seems unlikely that in a population of over 300 million people, those industries would be unable to find workers willing to take those jobs. Demonstrating this, 48 hours after a major ICE raid at Glenn Valley Foods in Omaha, every seat in the plant’s waiting area was filled with job-seeking U.S. citizens.

Something must be done. Perhaps E-Verify could be more widely implemented with federal agencies checking up on employers who hire illegals. Migrants should be made to register with the federal government and present some form of verifiable identification, fixed address and employer information. Deportations of criminals should obviously continue apace. Illegals with no verified employment or who choose not to comply with registration requirements should be deported and be made ineligible for taxpayer-funded assistance.

It’s what we voted for.

X22, On the Fringe, and more- June 24

 

From Deng Xiaoping to Fentanyl: The CCP’s Long Game to Infiltrate North America

 OTTAWA–LOS ANGELES — In this special investigative discussion, Sam Cooper sits down with Chris Meyer of WideFountain to dissect the Chinese Communist Party’s long game—and its convergence with transnational organized crime—in infiltrating North America’s western front.

Video at link below :

As The Bureau prepares a sweeping timeline investigation into Chinese, Mexican, and Iranian threat networks saturating Vancouver, Meyer offers a penetrating historical lens: tracing how CCP leadership, beginning in the Deng Xiaoping era, allegedly embraced corruption, money laundering, and narcotics as instruments of geopolitical disruption aimed squarely at the West.

Together, Cooper and Meyer begin connecting the transpacific dots—from encrypted communications firms and the emergence of fentanyl labs in Vancouver, to the rise of Sam Gor, China’s most powerful narco-trafficking syndicate, and its suspected ties to Beijing’s internal security apparatus. They examine how United Front and military intelligence strategies, launched more than four decades ago, set out to infiltrate North America—beginning with Los Angeles and Vancouver, while simultaneously targeting the White House—through ports, political networks, and elite capture.

https://www.thebureau.news/p/from-deng-xiaoping-to-fentanyl-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1444443&post_id=166721395&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=rd3ao&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Whose Side Are Democrats Really On?

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

It’s an odd day when you have to openly wonder which side of anything one of the two major political parties is on regarding issues, either good or bad, for the country. Thanks to what the Democrats have become, this is where we find ourselves. Most movements try to control or marginalize their radical fringe. Democrats gave them the keys to the car and climbed in the trunk. 

A big part of the left is so insulated from the reality that every other American lives in that they might as well live on a different planet. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes has been part of the chorus of unoriginal leftists insisting Kamala Harris lost because of racism and sexism, yet he now seems to think a significant portion of Trump voters would have shoved aside their racism and sexism if only they’d known he would ever consider bombing Iran over their nuclear program. 

Chrissy tweeted, “I truly do not think that if Trump had campaigned on ‘if I win, we will bomb Iran’ that he would have won.” Tell me you don’t know any Trump voters without telling me you don’t know any Trump voters.

Trump has been calling for preventing Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon for more than a decade and said as much on the campaign trail repeatedly. Chris must get his news from MSNBC or something. 

Certainly not unique in any way, Hayes was one of many voices expressing confusion and anger over what our government did to protect us, our allies, and the free world. It really kind of tells you everything you need to know about them as a party.

Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy – serious contender for worst father of the year as he settles in with the almost 20 years younger woman he left his wife and kids for – was desperate to undercut the moral authority of the United States of America because he suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome (along with God knows what else, but I’d have to assume at least some of them are penicillin resistant and impact brain function) so he tweeted, “here was no imminent threat. I got briefed on the same intelligence as the Speaker.”

It's disturbing how many Democrats are upset they weren’t briefed on the US raid before it happened, with many crying that they weren’t given a chance to weigh in on it by the White House seeking Congressional approval. These idiots have replaced thinking they should be President with thinking they ARE President. 

We only have one Commander-in-Chief at a time, and none of those people are. The President doesn’t have to seek approval for acting in the country’s best interest – he has 90 days to seek it after the fact, should the action be sustained. These actions are not going to be sustained; they are over. Democrats seem mad that they weren’t able to leak the impending attack and indulge their urge to aid our enemies. 

Ben Rhodes, who horrifyingly was Deputy National Security Advisor for Barack Obama, tweeted, “Trump's message to the world: if you have nukes like North Korea, I'll trade love letters with you, if you don't, I'll pull out of agreements you're keeping and bomb you during diplomacy.  Just devastating to non-proliferation.”

Did he really not realize that his “reasoning” is exactly why Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and why they’ve been pursuing one? I mean, it explains a lot, but it’s like discovering that not only was your Uber driver dumb, he was legally blind too. 

The ignorance on display has to be deliberate. Sure, some Democrats are genuinely stupid people – Eric Swalwell, AOC, Dan Goldman – but others are vile liars and frauds – Jamie Raskin, Hakeem Jeffries, Nancy Pelosi. Which camp is dominant at any given moment is something for each individual to decide for themselves, but there really are only those choices (and a third category that is a little from column A and a little from column B).

Whatever the case, the result is the same and leaves the audience wondering whose side the Democrats are really on? On issue after issue, none more clearly than taking out a terrorist regime’s nuclear weapons capabilities, the answer is abundantly clear: “Not America’s.” 

The Dems' Reactions to Trump's Iran Strikes Proves Again That They Can't Be Trusted With Our Safety

posted by Matt Vespa at Townhall 

President Trump’s Midnight Hammer was a success. It struck the Iranian nuclear facilities of Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow. The 37-hour mission, the longest bombing run for the B-2 fleet since the 2001 Afghanistan war, was carried out with elite precision; no other country could pull this off. The full might of the American military was on display. It should be a congratulatory run; most Republicans and patriots salute our president and the troops. It’s the liberals and some annoying libertarian-ish losers who are at a loss for what happened.  

I won’t dwell too much on those on our side—it’s really a few people. The left, however, is beside itself. For starters, like those Iranian nuclear facilities, more anti-Trump narratives were cooked. Trump didn’t back down from his position that Iran would not get nukes. He sent the B-2s to handle it. The Pentagon under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is not a circus—the entire operation has drawn some lauded commentaries about the level of secrecy. White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles runs a tight ship. If this were a White House in chaos—a tired and hyperbolic liberal coping exercise—they could have never pulled this off. And they did. 

We get things done. Republicans may still be behind the curve regarding Democrats’ knowledge of maximizing institutional power to come after their enemies, but we’ll get there. We must, as the Democratic Party has become our blood rivals. The Democratic response was as predictable as ever—calls for impeachment and a laughable argument that the strikes were illegal. The president can’t unilaterally bomb people and the like.  

The Democrats have zero grasp of history, and it’s brutally exposed here. By these standards, Barack Obama should be impeached for his bin Laden raid, where US Navy Seals breached Pakistani airspace, and the air campaign against Qaddafi in Libya. Also, the president does have the power to initiate airstrikes. Sure, one could argue against it, but it’s largely disregarded. Is that good or bad? It’s what it is, and it’s not going to change. It won’t change now or when Trump has long left office. 

The other comical part is that some Democrats, like Sen. Chris Murphy, said he read some intelligence, which was likely the cartoon on a Bazooka Joe wrapper, that said Iran posed no imminent threat. Really? Is that why Iran allegedly said it’s activated terror cells in the United States, operatives it likely got into the country under Joe Biden’s open border bonanza? That’s not a threat, Chris? It is, and it’s cause for war. Second, given that reaction, do we want to continue this nation's nuclear ambitions? We’ll swarm you with terrorists if you stop us from getting the bomb—sounds like a rational actor.  

Stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is a bipartisan goal. It’s not new. And we knew bombings could happen. It likely would’ve happened under Obama, which is why he raced to get his shoddy Iran nuclear deal through to avoid that decision from ever coming across his desk. What Trump did isn’t an overreach or even shocking. Unilateral military actions of this size and scope aren’t new either. The threat posed by Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, isn’t new. Nothing is new, not even the Trump-deranged hysterics from the usual suspects. 

Shut up, sit down, and let us protect America and get it growing again. Democrats would have us palling around with the Ayatollah by now. 

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Budget Office Estimates Biden Border Bedlam Cost States Billions

The Biden-era chaos posed ramifications far beyond our southern border, and Washington must take every effort to ensure that it never recurs.

Christopher Jacobs reporting for The Federalist

A recent report attempted to quantify the real costs the Biden administration’s deregulated border had on state and local governments.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the surge in illegal migration cost governments billions of dollars in 2023, which illustrates the real-world impact of the previous administration’s actions — or inactions. The report also exhorted Congress to provide adequate resources for border security, so that the chaos of the past four years can never happen again.

Quantifying Surge Populations

The CBO report looked at the impact of the Biden-era migration surge among “other foreign nationals.” This immigration category includes those who entered the United States unlawfully; so-called “overstays,” who entered the country lawfully but did not exit when their visa expired; parolees permitted entrance despite not falling into another immigration category; and those awaiting immigration proceedings in court. The budget office estimated that, by the end of 2023, the “other foreign national” population had increased by a net of 4.3 million since the Biden administration took office in 2021.

CBO believes that, of those 4.3 million, “about a quarter,” or roughly 1.1 million, “were qualified aliens upon arrival.” That term has particular relevance because the 1996 welfare reform law restricted eligibility for federal programs to “qualified aliens” who have served a five-year waiting period. However, CBO also notes that “about half,” or over 500,000, “of those qualified aliens” arriving during the surge “were exempt from the five-year waiting period,” and therefore could immediately receive taxpayer-funded benefits.

Lack of Regulation Poses Direct & Indirect Effects

The report examined both the direct and indirect effects of the migration surge, the latter of which takes into consideration second-tier impacts. For instance, direct effects include spending on services to house, feed, educate, or detain migrants. Indirect effects, on the other hand, include things such as an increase in property tax revenue because migrants’ demand for shelter raises housing prices, or a surge in the school-age population, necessitating the construction of new schools.

On net, CBO estimated the direct costs to state and local governments from the immigration surge at $9.2 billion in 2023 alone. Including indirect costs raised the total even further, to $9.8 billion in 2023.

These estimates of total costs may even be optimistic, particularly as it relates to the revenue CBO believes immigrants paid in taxes: “In CBO’s estimation, rates of compliance for income taxes were 15 percent lower among the surge population than among the total population because those immigrants were more likely to work without authorization.”

It makes sense for CBO to assume, as it did, no difference in compliance between the surge population and non-immigrants regarding sales taxes. Sales taxes accompany a transaction at a grocery or department store, or online, irrespective of an individual’s citizenship or immigration status. Likewise, CBO reasonably estimated lower income for the surge population because these individuals were younger and less educated than the whole population. If larger percentages of undocumented migrants — than the 15 percent non-compliance rate CBO assumes — fail to report their income or otherwise pay income taxes, then states would face even greater costs than the roughly $10 billion yearly figure quoted in the report.

The Trump Admin Must Secure the Border

Other nuggets in the CBO report further illustrate the tangible impact of the border chaos. For instance, the budget office notes that “in 2023, 550,000 children in public schools, or 1.1 percent of public school students, were part of the surge population.” Integrating into the educational system more than half a million children — many, if not most, of whom do not speak English as a first language —  poses sizable costs for districts around the country. These educational costs further add to the costs states face regarding border security and housing.

A report that places the total gross — as opposed to net — costs of the immigration surge on state and local governments at $28.6 billion in a single year demonstrates why Congress needs to provide the resources necessary to secure the border. The Biden-era chaos posed ramifications far beyond our southern border, and Washington must take every effort to ensure that it never recurs.

Can the Left Ever Stop Its Craziness? ~ VDH

posted by Victor Davis Hanson at Townhall 

California Senator Alex Padilla recently crashed a press conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. He deliberately wore no identification. He gave no advance warning that he would disrupt her briefing.

Instead, Padilla barged forward to the podium, shouting about the deportation of illegal aliens.

Immediately, Padilla got his media moment wish -- once Secret Service agents, who had no idea who Padilla was, forcibly removed him.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., recently attempted a pseudo-filibuster, speaking nonstop for 25 hours straight -- not to delay legislation, but to fixate on President Donald Trump.

South Carolina Democratic state Representative Julie von Haefen just posted on social media an image of a bloody guillotine. It bore the title "In these difficult times, some cuts may be necessary" and was juxtaposed with an image of a hanging, beheaded Trump, who, a year ago, was the target of two failed assassination attempts.

The more Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom scream at Trump for nationalizing the California Guard to stop L.A.'s nightly violent anti-ICE protests, the more the two appear on the side of those who riot, destroy property, and attack police.

Yet who really wants to side with illegal aliens who spit on and burn American flags while waving Mexican flags?

Recently, some Democrats and leftists have romanticized Kilmar Abrego Garcia -- an illegal alien, accused domestic abuser, gang member, and alleged human trafficker.

They also canonized illegal alien Mahmoud Khalil. But that pro-Hamas "student" helped organize and defend sometimes violent and antisemitic demonstrations at Columbia University.

For some on the Left, the assassin of a UnitedHealthcare CEO, the rich kid Luigi Mangione, has become a folk hero.

Others champion the undocumented family of illegal alien Mohammed Sabry Soliman and demand that they not be deported home to the Middle East -- despite Soliman's recent attempt to murder Jews using a homemade flamethrower and Molotov cocktails.

Former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, along with other prominent Democrats, mocked the recent Washington, D.C., military parade commemorating the 250th anniversary of the army, comparing it unfavorably with their own concurrent "No Kings" anti-Trump protests.

Those demonstrations -- subsidized by left-wing billionaire donors -- were utterly incoherent.

No other president has faced more lower federal court injunctions blocking executive orders than Trump.

Indeed, dozens of cherry-picked, left-wing district judges -- the real unchecked "kings" -- now routinely block almost every one of Trump's executive orders.

Why are opposition Democrats not offering alternative agendas and compromises?

Could they partner with Trump to allow green cards to illegal aliens who have no criminal records, have not been on public assistance, are now employed, and have resided in the U.S. for over five years?

Could Democrats meet with the president to express bipartisan support for democratic Israel in its existential war with theocratic Iran?

Instead, why do Democrats throw 2-year-old temper tantrums to howl nihilistically at everything Trump says and does?

One, exasperated Democrats lack all levers of political power -- the Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. So, they take to the media and the streets.

Two, Democrats are permanently frustrated that the more they scream and stomp, the more polls show radical declines in public support for their party.

Three, their nemesis, 79-year-old Trump, seems impervious to Democratic lawfare, threats, and smears.

Despite the hysterical attacks, he is still polling now about where prior presidents like George Bush and Barack Obama were at similar junctures in their second terms.

The more Trump is smeared as a fascist or dictator, the more polls -- like the latest liberal Economist/YouGov survey -- show him gaining public support for securing the border and deportation.

And the more the Left damns Trump as a racist, the more he wins unprecedented Black and Hispanic support. In recent Rasmussen tracking polls, Trump garnered 54 percent approval from Black voters and 53 percent from Hispanics.

Four, Trump proves a hard-to-hit, moving target for the frustrated left. He cannot quite be pigeonholed as a predictable right-wing bogeyman.

Unlike the Left, when Trump weighs in on the Ukraine war, he first begins by deploring the tragic waste of over a million lives.

No one is more pro-Israel. Yet no one has offered a losing Iran a chance to negotiate its way out of total and humiliating defeat.

Trump talks nonstop about protecting the middle class. Unions like him; Wall Street mostly despises him.

Trump wants to deport as many illegal alien criminals as possible. But he is willing to consider green cards for unlawful aliens who are working, crime-free, and with long residence in the U.S.

The Trump counterrevolution barrels ahead. The people cheer. And Democrats keep barking at the moon.

This Raging Leftist Shows You the Mental Prison They Live In

Brandon Morse reporting for RedState 

One woman is going viral for her very unhinged rant, and she may very well be the poster child for the affluent white female leftists or "AWFLs" as they've been nicknamed. This woman exhibits almost every symptom of brainwashing. All she's missing is the self-uglification that many radically leftist women make themselves undergo. 

She rants for a good solid minute, and I'm not going to lie, it was insufferable for just that 60 seconds. I'm not sure if I'd be able to tolerate any more than that, but still, she makes a very good example of just how well imprisoned these leftists are in their own heads. Let's dive in. 

Liberal women are insufferable pic.twitter.com/A3Hrz9IjLR

— Liberacrat™️ (@Liberacrat) June 21, 2025

She starts off by saying she doesn't want to hear another white person say the word "illegal" for the rest of her life. 

Right off the bat, she's dismissing the idea that the call to expel illegals is coming from anyone but white people, completely throwing out the fact that deporting illegals is a widely approved measure from various races. This woman has clearly been brainwashed in a University, so like many leftists, she has been programmed to think that anyone with a melanin level above "olive" can do no wrong. 

By that logic, only white people can be racist enough to want to deport illegal aliens from a place where they are illegally. Pew Research has shown that of the various races, each approve of deportations by a majority, including Hispanics. While some waffle between the extent of the deportations, only a minority of each race believe no one should be deported. 

She then launches straight into that old beloved leftist talking point of "we are living on stolen land."

I tackled this earlier in the month because I've heard it repeated so often. That claim is all nonsense because even the stolen land we're supposedly living on was stolen by others, who stole it from others. In fact, "stolen" is the wrong word to use here, because often times it was either conquered, traded, or bought, but none of that matters to a raging leftist NPC with a pre-programmed bone to pick with Western society. 

Regardless, all of these things happened so long ago that even if it was "stolen" we're so far removed thanks to generation after generation being born and raised here that we are the natives now. 

But then, she does something supremely stupid. She goes from stating that the land was stolen to proclaiming that we don't get to call people illegal because no one owns the planet. 

So which is it? 

Are we on stolen land, or are we right where we need to be because no one owns any of this? Naturally, she doesn't square these two thoughts because this is the mind of the radical leftist we're talking about here. The point isn't to find the truth or think about the logic, the point is to hate Western culture and the systems it birthed forth. In the case of these AWFLs, it's to do all this while living comfortably within that Western system. 

She then goes into how we're just monkeys writing scribbles on tree bark, and that these scribbles don't actually mean anything. 

I'm going to go ahead and stop her there, because I notice she has a roof over her head, a flat screen television behind her, and some decorations. I'm going to assume this is her residence and time and effort has been put into accumulating comforts and personalizations for it. 

I bet the moment someone walked into her home and began taking it over without her permission, taking her things, and being disrespectful to her property, she'd suddenly put value into those monkey scribbles. Suddenly, the "stolen land" argument would apply to her even though she said the land she's living on was stolen from some other group. If that group came into her home to steal it back, I'm pretty certain she'd call upon enforcement officials that keep Western laws obeyed. 

From here, she launches into your standard University brainwashed rant. 

Capitalism bad. Something about imperialism. Then another comparison to nature by claiming the lion can't proclaim the elephant as illegal, so we can't either... an argument that makes absolutely no sense if she were to sit down and think about it for a minute. Elephants and lions live in the same ecosystem, neither one is an invasive species, and we generally consider invasive species unhealthy to the environment they're invading, and we work to remove them once introduced. 

This lady has issues, and I don't just mean with her arguments. 

She has unnecessary anger. She's making arguments that don't logically align with her professed belief system. She's making these arguments comfortably within the system she's arguing against. Moreover, she can't seem to land on a logical focal point for said arguments. She's all over the place. 

It's as if the point is just to be mad. 

And I find that sad. That's self-imprisonment of the mind. To recklessly hate something for a reason you can't even really logic out means someone or something else owns your brain. If this lady were to truly sit down and think about what she's saying, she'd realize how stupid it all sounds. She'd realize her anger isn't even really hers. 

But she can't. She's clearly been heavily programmed and won't be escaping that programming anytime soon, at least, not unless something drastic happens to wake her up and get her to see reality. 

Until then, she's living in her own little mental jail cell. 

Hating Trump Was Never Going to Hurt Trump

Brandon Morse reporting for RedState 

On Monday, my colleague Nick Arama reported that Bill Maher stated on his podcast "Club Random" that he may be voting Republican for the first time in his life. While he claimed he was never a Democrat to begin with, he always caucused with them because they were "less scary and insane than the Republicans." 

That has apparently flipped for Maher, who said "We're approaching that because they have gotten crazier, and that's a lot of what you're referencing. But I never said I left the party 'cause I wasn't there to begin with." 

🚨NEW: Bill Maher suggests Dems getting so crazy he may end up voting Republican soon🚨

"I never was a Democrat to begin with. I always, like, caucus with the Democrats and I generally vote for them — I think always vote for them."

"But I always look at it and, like, no, I'm… pic.twitter.com/epslBFbIno

— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) June 22, 2025

The thing is, he's hardly the first Democrat (yeah, he's a Democrat) to say that. In fact, there's been an entire rash of Democrats meandering to the right because the left has, indeed, gotten insane. 

And a lot of this revolves around the idea that they don't really have anything to offer except one thing, and one thing only. 

They're anti-Trump. 

That's pretty much it. They're the party of "not Trump," and with that comes an absolute resistance to anything and everything they think President Donald Trump represents. This includes Christianity, Western values, our military, Capitalism, and American patriotism. 

In fact, I'm pretty sure this attitude has allowed the radicalism within the Democrat Party to flourish, as most of the moderates have vacated the D and swapped to the R just as Maher has because there's just nothing about the Democrat Party that's working. 

And we don't have to guess what "hating Trump" looks like when it's in power. 

Hating Trump never made gas cheaper. 

It didn't make groceries cheaper. 

It didn't make jobs easier to get. 

It didn't reduce inflation.

It didn't lower crime. 

It didn't secure our borders. 

It didn't make the world safer. 

It didn't make our enemies respect us. 

In fact, it only seemed to empower an element in our society that wanted to tear this system we've been building together for generations down, and it spread multiple kinds of mind viruses that had people believing things both about society and themselves that are demonstrably untrue. 

Being "anti-Trump" isn't a viable platform to base the entirety of your belief system on, because it's not really a platform at all. It's an emotion. If you let emotion dictate your entire life, then you're going to spiral and lose control. There are entire swaths of University students with badly cut hair, piercings, and anger issues that are proof of that. Emotion-based thinking has led to the destruction of would-be healthy marriages, bad business decisions, and yes, despotism. 

You think communist revolutions were formed through logical, and fact-based thinking? 

Trump has his issues, as all leaders do. I don't think everything he does is perfect, and you'll never see me put my full faith into a man, especially one at the height of Earthly power. 

But Trump is not the epitome or embodiment of evil. He's not a horrible person, either. He's flawed, but I wouldn't say he's a negative on society. His work is proof positive of that, and while leftism does its absolute best to force people to believe things that aren't true, it's really hard to convince millions of people that something happening right before their eyes isn't happening at all. 

Even if something does happen that ends up souring Trump in the eyes of many, such as the military action on Iran that has even the Republican Party split, we're still far better off than we were under the party of "not Trump," and disagreements with specific actions don't convince me, at least, that an entire rejection based on an emotional reaction is worth it.  

Even with Trump's flaws, being anti-Trump just because isn't justified and until Democrats figure that out, they'll keep losing. 

Whatever Happens Next, Iran Doesn’t Need To Be Made Safe For Democracy

Escalating our war with Iran by pursuing regime change and nation-building would be a colossal mistake.

by John Daniel Davidson for The Federalist

Now that President Donald Trump has decided to bring the United State into the Iran-Israel war by striking Tehran’s major nuclear facilities, our goal should be to ensure Iran remains a non-nuclear power that’s unable to threaten the United States or its allies anywhere in the world.

What that goal doesn’t require, however, is a regime-change war with the aim of toppling the ayatollahs and imposing democracy in Iran. The American interest is not served by toppling regimes and nation-building — especially not in the Middle East. Whatever the wisdom of striking Iran’s nuclear facilities at this particular time, on the heels of Israeli strikes on Iran, President Trump’s aim now should be to limit escalation and avoid plunging the U.S. into a years-long quagmire in Iran. 

Unfortunately, many people in Washington were hoping that Trump would strike Iran precisely because it might make room for the kind of escalation that would lead to a regime-change war. We still don’t know what Iran’s response will be to these strikes, and it might well lead to unavoidable escalation on our part. But that escalation should serve the purpose of rendering Iran harmless — not free, or democratic, or even stable. The internal politics of Iran are of no concern to us.

One hopes the president understands that, even as he acts to ensure that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons or carry out a major retaliatory attack on the U.S. Initially, there was reason to think he did understand. “Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s No. 1 state sponsor of terror,” Trump said Saturday night from the White House.

But on Sunday, Trump posted a disturbing comment about how it’s not politically correct to use the term “regime change,” “but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”

This is precisely the wrong view to take on Iran. The American interest in Iran is straightforward and strictly limited: that it should not be hostile to the United States. It can remain a repressive autocracy ruled by Islamic radicals — so long as they represent no threat to America. Whether the current Iranian regime is able to “make Iran great again” (whatever that means) is of no consequence to Americans. We don’t care whether Iran is great, middling, or riven by internal strife. All that matters for us is that Iran is not a threat. Here’s hoping President Trump has people close to him right now emphasizing that point.

Of course, that’s not to say Trump can completely stand down at this point. Having entered the war, the U.S. has changed it. Trump’s long-stated, legitimate goal is to prevent Tehran from acquiring nukes. Even the most isolationist MAGA supporters should embrace that goal. Indeed, the mountain facility at Fordow should have been destroyed by the U.S. when it was first discovered in 2009 (instead, Obama cooked up a deal that ensured Iran would eventually have nukes).

But the reality now is that these strikes are probably not the beginning and end of U.S. involvement in the Iran conflict. Trump said Saturday night that now Iran “must make peace,” and, “If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.” Whether future attacks will be easier remains to be seen, but in the near term there are practical and strategic matters that the president and his advisors will have to address. 

Chief among them is to ensure the Strait of Hormuz remains open. About a third of the world’s LNG and a quarter of global oil consumption passes through the strait, which makes it a ripe target for possible retaliation by Tehran. Iran has previously threatened to close the strait in response to a U.S. or Israeli attack, and indeed Iran’s parliament reportedly voted to close the strait on Sunday, although the final decision lies with the Supreme National Security Council. If Tehran does move to close the strait, it will require American air and naval power to keep it open.

Even then, however, U.S. military action to keep the Strait of Hormuz open need not escalate to the regime-change war. The historical model — to the extent there’s a good one for the current scenario — is Operation Praying Mantis in April 1988, when the United States destroyed much of Iran’s navy in a series of limited engagements by U.S. warships and aircraft from the carrier USS Enterprise. 

The operation was retaliation for Iran mining the Persian Gulf and nearly sinking a U.S. guided missile frigate, which had been escorting oil tankers as part of Operation Earnest Will, protecting them from Iranian attacks during the Iran-Iraq War. What ensued was the largest U.S. naval engagement since World War Two. The operation destroyed an Iranian oil platform, badly damaged another, sunk or crippled three warships and several gunboats.

After U.S. forces sank an Iranian frigate and badly crippled another, they were ordered to assume a de-escalatory posture to give Iran an off-ramp — which it took. Later that summer, thanks in part to the losses it suffered in Operation Praying Mantis, Iran agreed to a ceasefire with Iraq, ending the eight-year war.   

The engagement stands as an example of how to deal with a hostile Iran without escalating into a wider regional war or toppling the Iranian regime. The idea that every war or military engagement has to end with the creation of a democratic regime friendly to the U.S. is a dangerous fantasy that has gripped Washington for a generation.

Iran hawks will reply by insisting that every war isn’t Iraq in 2003, which is true in a narrow sense. But Trump’s approach to American arms has been the exception, not the rule, over the past quarter-century. When he ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020, without pursuing any further escalation, it represented a departure from how American military force had been used abroad since 9/11 and the Global War on Terror.

By taking out Solemani and leaving it at that, Trump was practicing a form of Jacksonian foreign policy that prioritizes and aggressively defends American interests, rather than the ideological priorities of neoconservative nation-building that had dominated American foreign affairs for nearly two decades.

That’s the approach we need now in the Middle East. The pressure on Trump to escalate from the intelligence agencies in particular will be intense. And there’s good reason not to trust those agencies. As Rachel Campos Duffy noted Sunday, the intelligence apparatus in place now is the same one that insisted there were WMDs in Iraq, that cooked up the Russia collusion hoax, that lied about Hunter Biden’s laptop. And we know from the first Trump administration that these agencies are willing to withhold or distort information to undermine Trump and advance their own agenda.

The danger we face now, then, is twofold: not just retaliation from Iran and its terrorist proxies, but machinations by establishment neocons and our corrupt intelligence apparatus to embroil us in a regime-change war in the Middle East. If Trump wants truly to embrace a Jacksonian foreign policy and advance his America First agenda at home, he’ll resist that temptation.

If he does, then we’ll hear no more talk of regime change or “making Iran great again,” which has nothing to do with America. There’s a reason that talk of regime change is politically toxic on the right, and Trump would do well to remember why that is.