Pam Bondi Confirms Ark Of The Covenant Sitting On Her Desk Waiting To Be Reviewed
Another "Superman" movie is about to be released, as Warner Bros. tries, yet again, to reboot its DC Comics universe after a myriad of failures. At the head of the endeavor is director James Gunn, perhaps best known for his work on the "Guardians of the Galaxy" franchise. For my money, the first movie in the series was one of the best movies Disney and Marvel Studios ever put out.
Gunn is not without controversy, though. In the early 2020s, he found himself temporarily fired after left-wingers rushed to cancel him over old tweets where he joked about pedophilia and rape, among other things. Still, he's a talented filmmaker, and many people have had high hopes for his reimagining of the DC universe, including "Superman."
'Superman' Official Full Trailer Drops, and It's Already Gone Viral
Which makes his decision to burn all the goodwill around his film to the ground right before its release a real headscratcher. During a recent interview with The Times of London, Gunn stated his movie is "about politics," citing the illegal immigration situation in the United States, and his answer to anyone who doesn't like that is "screw them."
In his Sunday profile with The Times of London, the DC Studios head went deep on the themes and ideas that drive his highly anticipated “Superman.” He explained that the superhero epic encompasses “the story of America,” and at a basic level, is about a man searching for a better life away from his original home.
“I mean, ‘Superman’ is the story of America,” Gunn explained. “An immigrant that came from other places and populated the country, but for me it is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost.”
Gunn acknowledged that the movie’s themes may be interpreted differently across political groups, especially considering the current nationwide unrest around immigration. However, Gunn stands by the ideals embedded in “Superman,” and added that he doesn’t care if anyone takes offense.
“Yes, it plays differently, but it’s about human kindness and obviously there will be jerks out there who are just not kind and will take it as offensive just because it is about kindness. But screw them,” he said.
I'm not going to outright reject all of the themes Gunn is pushing. I think conservative commentators can sometimes be too quick to lash out, and it makes us look petty and overemotional at times. Superman does come from a different planet, and the history of the comics does include his run-in with authorities who do not understand him or believe he is good. Whether that translates to "the story of America" is a different matter, as I think there's quite a bit more to the nation's history than that, but let's put that aside.
The problem with this is how hostile it is. As a director, producer, actor, or studio executive, you should never try to promote your movie by proclaiming it's about politics and then shouting "screw them" at anyone who might object to that. Americans are rightfully tired of having "the message," as The Critical Drinker says, shoved down their throats in entertainment. After decades of Hollywood pushing overplayed left-wing themes in almost every movie and television show, a lot of the benefit of the doubt has evaporated.
So even if the movie isn't actually that political, Gunn has already alienated a large portion of his potential audience by essentially telling them they aren't welcome when he didn't need to. I don't get it. How is that a smart box office strategy? Why not just stay neutral and let viewers decide how they interpret the film? That would avoid a lot of controversy and keep things apolitical, at least on the surface.
Of course, there's another possibility here. Given the rash of superhero movie flops over the last few years (by both Marvel and DC), it's possible the preliminary data on "Superman" isn't great, and Gunn and Warner Bros. are looking to rally people to the theaters by purposely stirring up political controversy. If that's the plan, I have serious doubts about it working.
But hey, maybe it'll be a great movie and Gunn's political jabs are just noise from a guy who couldn't help himself. We'll just have to wait and see.
I never really bought the whole “Barry and Joe are BFFs” narrative about former President Obama and his vice president, Biden. After all, Barack urged his VP not to run for president in 2016 and never seemed all that enthused campaigning for him in 2020 and 2024. He also reportedly once said (profanity alert), "Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f*** things up.” In more recent times, Obama has been accused of being the mastermind—along with California Dem Rep. Nancy Pelosi and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer—of torching Biden’s reelection campaign and forcing him to drop out.
They sound like real good buds.
As our sister site PJ Media reported, a new book is making fresh charges that Obama was less than impressed at Biden’s first term as president, and was extremely concerned about his ability to win a second term:
A forthcoming book about the 2024 election has exposed what many conservatives suspected all along: Obama never really believed Biden was fit for a second term, and he wasn't shy about letting everyone know it. When the two met for lunch at the White House in 2023, Obama walked away "slightly incredulous" that Biden was even attempting another run, according to a report from The Guardian, which received an advance copy of the book.
The book alleges that Obama didn’t just keep his concerns to himself or share them only with his wife Michelle. No, he went straight to Biden’s staff to undermine his successor:
When the pair met for lunch in December, Obama argued that dividing the campaign leadership between Wilmington and Washington was not suitable for the fast decision-making required by a modern presidential election.
“After the lunch,” the authors write, “Obama did not leave the White House right away. He stopped to visit with Biden’s senior staff, many of whom used to work for him, and shared his account of what he and Biden had discussed. Obama was more blunt with the staff. ‘Your campaign is a mess,’ he told them.”
Biden’s staff apparently didn’t take too kindly to what they saw as Obama’s arrogance, the book claims:
But Obama was resented by some in the Biden inner circle. Earlier in 2023, he had filmed videos to help the president with online fundraising. “In one clip, Obama reminded Democrats he had ‘won a couple of these’ elections, causing some of Biden’s aides to roll their eyes,” the book reports.
“There was a lot of overlap among aides to Obama and Biden, but to Biden loyalists, Obama was a prick. They thought he and his inner circle had constantly disrespected and mistreated Biden, despite his loyal service as vice president.”
Obama may not have been much of a friend, but you have to admit, he was right—an obviously mentally compromised Joe Biden was in no position to act as the leader of the free world for four more years. Thankfully, the American people saw that clearly and didn’t give him the chance.
But the Obama-Biden "team" always seemed awkward to me: the smooth-talking, effete president and his faux-macho, intellectually inferior VP.
It should not be forgotten, however, that the destruction Biden brought onto our country for four miserable years—and the resulting Republican resurgence—is in the end due to Obama himself. If Barack had let the then-twice-failed presidential candidate drift off into history books back in 2008 and not picked him out of the ashes to be his running mate, we might have barely heard from Joe Biden since then.
Thanks, Barack.
White House National Economic Chairman, Kevin Hassett, discusses the current status of the ongoing trade negotiations as the deadline for engagement windows is scheduled to close on July 9th.
As outlined by Kevin Hassett, we can expect those nations who are not in current negotiations will receive letters from President Trump letting them know that the baseline tariff rate (10%) and reciprocity rate (unknown) will be. Large nations like India and China are currently in negotiations. The EU collective has preliminary contact information, and a few others are in close proximity to Free Trade Agreement closure.
With the Big Beautiful Bill passed, in combination with baseline and reciprocal tariffs, the revenues to grow the GDP are in place to expand the overall U.S. economy. WATCH:
[Transcript] – WEIJA JIANG: We turn now to Kevin Hassett. He is the director of the National Economic Council and one of President Trump’s top advisors. He’s also very popular on that driveway where I’m usually alongside about a dozen reporters. So, Kevin, thank you so much for your time this morning. I want to start with trade, because there’s a big deadline coming up on Wednesday. As you know, that 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs that the President announced back in April is set to end. So far, the US has announced a few deals; the UK, Vietnam, and you’re inching closer to a final agreement with China. Do you expect to get any more deals done with America’s biggest trading partners by Wednesday?
KEVIN HASSETT: Yeah. First, I do have to take- take a pause and share your thoughts and prayers with the people of Texas. It’s an incredible, heartbreaking story, and Kristi Noem and the President have instructed the federal government to throw everything they’ve got at helping the survivors and helping clean up that place. So, anyway, I’m really heartbroken today to see these stories, and I want you to know that in the White House, everybody is putting every effort they can into helping the people of Texas today.
On trade, there’s going to be quite a bit of news this week. And, I think, the headline of the news is that there are going to be deals that are finalized. There are a whole number that Jameson Greer has negotiated with foreign governments, and then they’re going to be letters that are sent to countries saying, here’s how we think it ought to go, because the deals aren’t advanced enough. And the headline is going to be that countries are agreeing around the world to open their markets up to our products, and to allow us to put some kind of tariff on their products when they come into the US. At exactly what the numbers will be, will be things that you’ll find out in the news this week.
WEIJA JIANG: Kevin, you said there are going to be deals. For those really important trading partners, if there’s not a deal by Wednesday, is the President going to extend this pause?
KEVIN HASSETT: You know, the United States is always willing to talk to everybody about everything that’s going on in the world. And there are deadlines, and there are things that are close, and so maybe things will push back the dead- past the deadline, or maybe they want- in the end, the President’s going to make that judgment.
WEIJA JIANG: And you also mentioned those letters that will start going out tomorrow, according to President Trump. He said about 10 to 12 countries will receive them. Do you- can you tell us who’s going to get one and what they say?
KEVIN HASSETT: Because- because, again, the part of the letter that could be happening right is that we’re close to a deal, we’re not really satisfied with the progress that we’re making at the deal, and so we’re saying, okay, fine, we’re going to send a letter, but maybe you get a deal at the last minute too. Until we see everything that plays out, I think that we need to just hold our fire and watch for the news this week.
WEIJA JIANG: Is it fair to say that those notices are going to go to our smaller trading partners, as you negotiate with our bigger ones?
KEVIN HASSETT: I think that it could be that it’ll be both. But also, don’t forget, that when we have great trade deals, our smaller trading partners could become much bigger trading partners. And that’s, I think, one of the reasons why countries are racing to set deals up with us ahead of the deadline.
WEIJA JIANG: I have to ask you about the deadlines, Kevin, to make these deals, because you just mentioned you’re always open. The president said there’s not really any flexibility left between now and Wednesday. Less than two weeks ago, the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that deals would be wrapped up by Labor Day. So, I wonder, you know, if- how can companies plan if the goal posts keep moving? How can countries negotiate if they don’t even know how much time they have left?
KEVIN HASSETT: Right. Well, the rough outlines of the deals are becoming clear to everybody, because we have some deals like the UK, and the Vietnam deal that are starting to be, you know, I guess, guidelines for what might happen. But, one of the things that we’re seeing that’s really interesting to me, is that people are just on-shoring production of the US at a record rate. As we’ve had record job creation, record capital spending, and this is even ahead of the Big, Beautiful Bill. And so, I think what’s happening is that people are responding to President Trump’s, you know, potential threats to have high tariffs on countries by moving their activity here into the US, which is creating jobs, more than 2 million jobs, since he took office, and raising wages. You know, wage growth is heading up towards the really, really high pinnacles that we saw in 2017. And so, I think there’s a race right now to get activity into the US. And, in part, that race has been kicked off by President Trump.
WEIJA JIANG: I remember after these reciprocal tariffs were announced, you told me that there were about 15 deals that countries were bringing to the President. How close, if you could give us any number at all, what number are we going to see this week?
KEVIN HASSETT: Yeah, you’ll have- you’ll have to get that from Jameson and the President. I think that, you know, we’ve seen lots of deals that have been finalized by our negotiators, and then the President finds things that could make them better. And so, it’s- I’m not going to get ahead of the President on the number of deals.
WEIJA JIANG: Okay, thanks, Kevin. We’ll look out for that. I want to move now to the One Big, Beautiful Bill that, of course, the President signed into law on Independence Day. You have it, and now you have to pay for it. And there’s a consensus that this bill adds tremendously to the deficit. I know that you are so familiar with these numbers. The Yale Budget Lab estimates it will add $3 trillion to the debt. The Tax Foundation says this tax portion of the bill could also add $3 trillion to the deficit. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which factors in interest on the debt, says it could add up to $5 trillion over the next decade. And on this very program, even Speaker Johnson answered in the affirmative when asked if this bill would add over $4 trillion to the deficit. I know that the administration says the bill will actually shrink the deficit by $1.5 trillion. Help me understand why there is such a drastic difference between your number and all those others.
KEVIN HASSETT: Well- well, first of all, let’s remember that science is not democracy. Truth is not democracy. Our estimates are based on modeling that we used last time, when I was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to say what would happen if we had a bill, how much growth we would get. And we said, and we were criticized soundly, that we would get 3% growth. And we even had the really technical macroeconomic models that said that we would get 3% growth. We run the same models through this tax bill, it’s even better. And what we’re seeing is that if you get 3% growth again, then that’s $4 trillion more in revenue than the CBO and these other bodies are giving us credit for. They have been wrong in the past, and they’re being wrong again, in our belief. But, the thing that disappoints me is that if I put out a model and I say, hey, here’s what’s going to happen, we’re going to get 3% growth. And then it turns out it’s 1.5% growth, then, as an academic economist, as a scientist, then it’s my duty to say, what did I get wrong? What did my model miss? These people aren’t doing that. And that’s the thing that I find disappointing, because we put peer-reviewed academic stuff on the table, said we’re going to get that 3% growth, and then we got it right last time, and we believe we’re going to get it right this time. But, if you think that 1.8% growth is what’s going to happen over the next 10 years, then you should agree with the CBO number. But, there’s another part of the CBO number that you need to worry about. And that is that if we don’t pass the bill, that it’s the biggest tax hike in history. And with that big tax hike, that of course, we would have a recession. The CEA says that we’d have about a 4% drop in GDP and lose 9 million jobs. If we had a 4% drop in GDP and we lost 9 million jobs, what would happen to the deficit? And so, I don’t think that the CBO has a very strong record. I don’t think these places have a very strong record. And what they need to do is get back to the basics of looking at macroeconomic models. There’s a really famous macroeconomist at Harvard named Jim Stock. They should go back and read everything Jim Stock has written for the last 15 years, and fold those into their models, and then maybe we could talk.
WEIJA JIANG: I want to talk too, Kevin, about another number that I know you and the President disagree with, but that Democrats and many Republicans are worried about, and that’s the CBO’s projection that as many as 12 million Americans could lose Medicaid coverage because of this law. What is the NEC’s estimate for how many people could lose coverage?
KEVIN HASSETT: Well- well, yeah. Let’s- let’s unbundle that a little bit. Because, first, on the CBO coverage, so what are we doing? So, what we’re doing is we’re asking for a work requirement. But, the work requirement is that you need to be looking for work, or even doing volunteer work, and you don’t need to do it until your kids are 14 or older. And so, the idea that that’s going to cause a massive hemorrhaging in availability of insurance, doesn’t make a lot of sense to us. And then, if you look at the CBO numbers, if you look at the big numbers, they say that people are going to lose insurance. About 5 million of those are people who have other insurance. They’re people who have two types of insurance. And so, therefore, if they lose one, they’re still insured. And so, the CBO numbers on that side don’t make any sense to us at all. But, on the other side, go back to 2017 when we had work requirements for Obamacare, they said that we lose about 4 million insured between 2017 and 2019, and about double that over the next 10 years. And, in fact, the number of insured went up. It went up quite a bit, by more than 10 million over those two years, because the bottom line is, the best way to get insurance is to get a job.
And we’ve got a Big, Beautiful Bill that’s going to create a lot of job creation and a lot of insurance, and the CBO is just not accounting for that. And again, they need to go back and look at all the things that they got wrong. You realize that they’re underestimating Medicaid spending by 20%. They should look back at all the things they got wrong, and explain what they’re going to do to get it right in the future, and to do a better job. And if they do that, we’ll take them more seriously. But right now, I don’t think any serious thinker could take them seriously, because they’ve done so wrong, and wrong for so long.
Even back- if you go back to when President Obama passed Obamacare, they got every single number there wrong about how many people would get private insurance and how few people would get Medicaid, and so on. And so, their record in this modeling space is about as bad as it’s possible to be. In fact, you could, kind of, roll the roulette wheel and come up with a better set of numbers, better history, track record than CBO.
WEIJA JIANG: Kevin, what about the enhanced subsidies? Is that number wrong too? That the ACA allows about $705 for people to help pay for their health insurance. That doesn’t sound like the waste, fraud, and abuse that I know you and the President have talked about eliminating. That just sounds like people who cannot afford coverage, and now it’s going to be even more so with the subsidies gone.
KEVIN HASSETT: Right. Well- well, if you’re- if you’re looking at the- the change in the tax on the providers, which is something that has been a key talking point for the Democrats, they say that that’s going to close down rural hospitals. What has happened is that, rather than let the states- the states have this game where they give a dollar to a hospital and then the federal government matches the dollar, and then the state taxes some of the dollar away.
In other words, that we have an agreement with the states that they’re going to match, but then they have this they have this trick where they tax the hospitals after they give them the money, so really, it’s the federal government giving them the money. And that’s why we’ve been overspending Medicaid by 20% since this trick started happening. And so, what we’ve done is that we’ve put a haircut on that. But, we’ve also put $50 billion into a trust fund to make sure that the rural hospitals are there to treat the sick. So, I think this is a prudent form. It’s sound budgetary politics. And I think that nobody’s going to lose their insurance.
WEIJA JIANG: Kevin Hassett, we will watch for how that ages. Thank you very much. Really appreciate —
KEVIN HASSETT: – And if I get it wrong, we’ll check, and we’ll talk about why I got it wrong. I promise.
WEIJA JIANG: Thank you. We’ll have you back. Thank you very much, Kevin.
[End Transcript]
In another triumph for the Trump administration, federal authorities have arrested hundreds of individuals in a sweeping joint operation in New Jersey aimed at restoring safety and accountability in communities across the nation. While politicians in blue states downplay crime brought into the U.S. through the southern border under previous administrations, this coordinated effort sends a clear message that under President Donald Trump, law enforcement won't stop until every dangerous offender is held accountable.
According to U.S. Marshal Juan Mattos Jr. and Acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba, federal authorities arrested 264 criminals in a joint operation called "Operation Apex Hammer." It was described as being a “one-month statewide violent crime reduction initiative with federal, state, and local partners” working together to “identify and apprehend” gang members.
Habba previously stated that federal authorities are pursuing multiple cases simultaneously to get criminals off the streets as swiftly as possible. She emphasized that violent crime is the top priority for this administration, making it clear that their focus is firmly on restoring safety and order.
Those apprehended include illegal immigrants “wanted for sex crimes” and criminals wanted for murder or sexual offenses. Seventeen of those arrested were wanted for homicide, and 95 were gang members. The report stated that among the 254 criminals arrested, they had collectively committed 2,625 crimes. That is about ten each.
According to law enforcement officials, 54-year-old Lorenzo Benitez, an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala, was taken into custody on June 4 in Plainfield, New Jersey. He is facing several sexual assault charges related to incidents in Keansburg.
In a separate case, authorities reported that Darlin Franco-Guzman, a 25-year-old Honduran national living in the U.S. illegally, was apprehended in Trenton on June 10. He was wanted in Baltimore County, Maryland, for burglary and the attempted sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl.
This is exactly the kind of tough, no-nonsense action the country needs. This effort is part of Operation Apex Hammer, a month-long initiative aimed at reducing violent crime across the state through collaboration between federal, state, and local agencies. Teams involved in the operation focused on tracking down and arresting individuals tied to gangs and other violent offenders with outstanding felony warrants. Targets included members of MS-13, Tren de Aragua, Sex Money Murder-Bloods, Rolling 60’s Crips, and other dangerous groups.
You know the saying: a broken clock is right twice a day. For former Ohio State Sen. Nina Turner, a firebrand progressive and Bernie Sanders supporter, who is the perfect person to be an MSNBC guest, she holds that honor today in the aftermath of the devastating and tragic floods in Central Texas. The damage is immense, with the death toll surging toward 100 dead as storms ripped through Kerr County and swelled the Guadalupe River 25-plus feet in less than two hours.
Liberals have been blaming the Trump administration for the proposed DOGE cuts while also cheering for more deaths. It’s who the Left is regarding people with whom they disagree. They’re puerile, ghoulish, and all-around disgusting people who have no clue what they’re talking about. For Ms. Turner, she didn’t hold back trashing those on her side using a tragedy:
The GOP’s budget cuts to NOAA are set to take effect at the start of fiscal year 2026, which begins on October 1, 2025.
Anyone making the deaths of the children in Texas about partisan politics is morally bankrupt. Please reflect.
Also, the National Weather Service had extra staff, warnings were sent, and every anti-Trump loony toon narrative has been obliterated in less than 36 hours. Liberals don’t read the real news—that’s the problem. They’ve also lost the ability to reason. They hate, lecture, and tell people who they feel are less than that they either deserve to die or deserve bad things to happen to them based on political preferences.
That’s insane. We’re dealing with mental midgets of the worst kind.
