Sunday, September 28, 2025

Trump Speaks the Truth


President Trump, unlike a host of politicians, prioritizes the truth — perhaps because he is not a politician.  His announcement on September 11 of the death of Charlie Kirk is a good example.  Hours before the death was confirmed by the media, Trump announced on Fox and Friends that Kirk had passed away.  No theatrics, no politics — just the fact that Kirk was dead.

Trump is thoughtful and precise in his use of language.  One can see this when he hesitates to answer the media’s gotcha questions and returns a clear, truthful answer.  Also like Charlie Kirk, he is never afraid to face his opponents.  For a decade now, Trump has faced down hostile reporters (the fake news media) and answered calmly with the truth.

When Trump is uncertain, he makes that clear, as when he recently announced that a “framework” (not a deal) had been achieved to preserve Tiktok and transform it into a company friendly to America.  He probably knew that a “deal,” more than a framework, was likely and who the players were, but he did not take credit for a deal that had not yet been finalized.  No “Mission Accomplished” until the mission was actually accomplished.

Trump is unique among recent presidents in the care with which he employs language, which is to say the care he gives to thought and the importance he ascribes to honesty.  He did not become a colossus in the business world by misleading others or going back on his word.  Trump is wise enough to understand that once caught in a lie, he will lose his reputation, and reputation is everything.

No recent president has been this truthful.  Clinton was often deceptive (“it depends on the meaning of ‘is’”), Bush II was weak and evasive, and Obama seemed deliberately misleading (his campaign to “nudge” his listeners to change their ways is one example).  Biden was secretive; when he did speak, he came across as close to illiterate.  Biden’s many gaffes were not just unimportant mistakes: they were reflections of an individual who was so engrossed in politics that he seemed not to care about or even to be capable of expressing the precise truth.

By contrast, Trump answers questions in a straightforward and honest fashion.  He can often be seen pausing before he answers so as to speak clearly and accurately.  He genuinely cares about the truth.  When asked in a recent interview what his one “bucket list wish” was, he answered: to make America great again.  It’s clear that the president has thought deeply and long about that one task and that he brings everything he has, 18 hours a day, to completing it.

There again, Trump is unique.  He has set a noble and ambitious goal for himself, and he labors tirelessly to achieve it.  Can the same thing be said for Clinton, Obama, or Biden?  Clinton’s “goal,” it seemed, was to remain in office and to satisfy certain ignoble desires.  Biden had no goal, so far as I can tell.  Obama often said his goal was to “transform America,” but he did so in ways that were opposed by more than half the public.  A weak foreign policy, socialized medicine, de facto racial quotas, and government-funded abortions and genital mutilation are not changes that the public approved of, and they were not designed to make America great again.

Obama wanted to transform America because he did not like America as it was and had been for centuries.  As Michelle Obama famously declared, she hadnever been proud of her country...until its people elected her husband president.

Trump, by contrast, is working to make America great again.  What his careful wording reveals is that Trump is proud of what his country had been, and that he wants to restore, not transform, it greatness. 

Trump was never more honest than he was in addressing the United Nations on Sep. 23.  Other presidents have paid lip service to the U.N.’s feeble efforts at peacekeeping and addressing poverty and disease, but Trump made it clear that he does not respect the U.N. and does not wish to continue funding it at current levels.  In his speech, Trump stated that the U.N. “is not even coming close to its potential.”  After highlighting the many accomplishments of his first seven full months in office, Trump turned to his audience and said, “Your countries are going to hell.”  One couldn’t get more blunt than that.

“It’s too bad,” he said, that the United Nations “did not even try to help” with any of the international problems he has solved on his own.  As for the U.N., “all they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up.  It’s empty words, and empty words don’t solve war.”  On another matter, Trump insisted that “not only is the U.N. not solving the problems it should — too often, it’s actually creating new problems for us to solve.  The best example is the number-one political issue of our time: the crisis of uncontrolled migration.”

At the U.N., Trump was nothing if not direct, but he was hardly negative.  He held out his hand to any nation who wished to join the U.S. in peace and prosperity.  He insisted that the U.N. had great potential.  Again and again, Trump said that his purpose was to “save lives”: in ending war in Ukraine and Palestine, in halting illegal migration, in blocking illegal drugs from entering the U.S., in fighting crime, and in ending the Green New Scam.  

Likewise with trade: “In the United States, we want trade and robust commerce with all nations, everybody.  We want to help nations; we’re gonna help nations.  But it must also be fair and reciprocal.”  At the moment he uttered these words, Trump was facing an audience comprising the representatives of all of America’s trading partners, many of whom are now facing new tariffs.  But instead of sugar-coating his remarks, Trump was honest and direct. Yes, for many years, other nations have taken advantage of the U.S.  Now is the time for fair and equal trade.

In concluding, Trump again sought friendship: “Let us all work together to build a bright, beautiful planet, a planet that we all share, a planet of peace and a world that is richer, better, and more beautiful than ever before.  That can happen.  It will happen.”

Not since Reagan have we had a president who spoke with such honesty and directness.

“Speaking the truth” may seem like a simple matter, but it is not.  It is, in fact, a crucial test of character, and one at which many of our national leaders have failed.  One ought to listen to Trump when he speaks.  He has earned that privilege through his many years of speaking the truth.



Podcast thread for Sept 28

 


When it feels like all there is is darkness, do things that bring light in your life.

Democrats Need to Stand Up to Their Radicals Before It’s Too Late


In June of 2017 I wrote, “I’m old enough to remember when ‘violent rhetoric’ was the root of allour problems, and crosshairs on a website no one ever saw was the reason for mass murder.” It was in a piece entitled, “The Left Won’t Rest Until Someone Gets Killed.” I wrote about how Democrats “are stoking fears to the point that even the casual observer is left with the impression they’re hoping someone ‘corrects’ that accident. How else can one interpret the left’s continual equating of the president to Adolf Hitler? What is implied in saying the man’s actions on an otherwise insignificant international agreement ‘is a grave threat to our planet?’”

I’m no soothsayer – if I had the ability to see into the future I would have won the lottery multiple times by now – but it doesn’t take someone clairvoyant to see that the road Democrats have been marching down for years was going to end in death and destruction. Well, here we are, and it has only just begun.

Just 2 weeks later, my column was titled, “Liberals Got Their Blood, Will It Be Enough?” What happened in those 2 weeks? A Democrat, inspired by the left’s hyperbolic rhetoric on health care and a rabid fan of MSNBC, tried to murder as many Republicans as possible on a baseball field in northern Virginia.

The talk at the time was about how politicians needed to “bring down the tone” of the political talk – a classic “both sides” situation, like saying men need to stop raping women, but also women need to stop wearing such short skirts and making men want to rape them. That was the attitude at that time, that is the attitude at this time.

The closest thing to a sane Democrat is the guy with literal brain damage, Senator John Fetterman from Pennsylvania, who said he found it disgusting that so many of his fellow Democrats cheered Charlie Kirk’s murder.

About 20 minutes after celebrating Kirk’s murder, Democrats returned to calling everyone who refused to conform to their wishes a Nazi and demanding ICE agents “show their faces” because “if you have nothing to hide, why hide your identity?”

Well, the last guy who made is name seeking to have an “honest dialog” with you people was murdered by one of you, so maybe that’s why they’re hiding their faces?

Former Meet the Press host, Chuck Todd, said, “I’m not going to sit here and say ICE is bringing this on themselves…but why are we masking the agents when they come after people?” What’s your home address, Chuckie? He won’t give it, nor do I really want him to, but it should be enough for him to understand what he and his fellow travelers have created.

Chuck doesn’t want his home address out there because he doesn’t want anyone showing up to torment, or worse, him and his family. He also knows, though he’d never admit it, that threat comes mostly from the left – this is the monster they’ve created to attack the right and it’s now beyond their control.

When he was still employed, Chuck routinely was the target of online vitriol from the left for not being “progressive” enough. That’s how it has always worked with the left around the world – a purity test is initiated and a purge soon follows. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc., leftists always turn on their inner circles for a suspected impurity or simply because they out-lived their usefulness. For Chuck, it was that he’d have on the occasional guest that displeased MSNBC’s viewers by thinking for themselves.

You can see why he’d be scared.

But being a liberal means never being aware of the consequences of your actions – you’re compassionate in your advocacy of welfare programs, so you don’t notice or care about the destruction of the family they’ve caused.

Liberals just Mr. Magoo their way through life without ever being impacted by destruction in their wake. That’s going to end one day, how it ends will determine how, or even if, we continue as a country.

Sometimes, I don’t think we can continue, others I get more optimistic. It used to be the radical fringe of the Democrat Party was just that, a radical fringe. But they started electing their crazies, idolizing them, and no one in leadership had the guts to tell them to calm down. Nancy Pelosi bowed to them, Chuck Schumer soils himself over a primary challenge when he could have easily swatted these people down just a couple of years ago.

Now, blood-thirsty leftists who’d kill their own parents will soon run the show – they are the date-rapists of politics, they do not take “no” for an answer. If you think they give a damn about the bad publicity they’ve gotten from killing Kirk or trying to murder ICE agents, you haven’t been paying attention.

There will be more blood, there could be a lot of blood. It all boils down to who stops it, Democrats or Republicans. It would be best and much easier, and less bloody, if Democrats did it. These are their teammates, rejecting the evil is a more effective and permanent solution than it being conquered.

Sadly, I don’t think Democrats have it in them anymore. The ones inclined to stand up to violence fear the people doing it too much to say anything – and, as they say, silence is violence. The rest would rather co-opt the energy and message to protect their careers – the safety of blending into a crowd so as to avoid blame and responsibility.

And the media won’t report on it honestly either, they’re just as terrified of being bricked or shot by these leftists as anyone on their political side is.

I fear it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets any better, if it gets better at all. If the FBI and Department of Justice could worry less about their social media profiles and more about using the levers of power they only have access to for certain for a couple of more years, they could do some good with a serious, quick and thorough investigation of how these people operate and are funded. But the don’t seem serious enough. They only have about 2 years, at the most, before any case they bring would drag into the next administration, and if that’s a Democrat it will likely be dropped. Soon or it’s all for nothing.

I don’t mean to paint a picture of doom and gloom, or tell you to buy weapons to protect yourself, though you should. I’m just laying out what I see as possible, or in some cases probable, scenarios for how this all plays out.

Ideally, Democrats would handle their own; purge the party of the mentally unstable and evil, ending this whole problem now. But the people in power there saw this coming – this is as surprising as being hit by a train, which you can avoid with near certainty by not playing on train tracks.

The left played with fire, now they are on the cusp of burning down the entire country. Either they stop it or everyone else does, because you don’t really want to think about the third option.



Democrats Can’t Debate


Charlie Kirk is emblematic of one of the things that is great about our country.  Endowed by our Creator, we have freedom of speech.  The First Amendment in our Bill of Rights enshrines this.  Within bounds, we can express our own opinion, argue, and debate.  Most importantly, we are free to say unpopular things so long as there’s no incitement to violence or willful defamation.

Charlie used freedom of speech to enlighten, educate, argue, and persuade.  He chose a debate format, offering people with ideological differences a chance to give their own perspectives.  If you count winning by hearts and minds, there was a clear champion over time of the debates.  And, that champion was gathering strength and gaining ground.  This is what terrified atheists and progressives most.  The latter’s worldview has a stranglehold based on conformity, consensus, and ideological purity couching no challenge or dissent.

Calls have been renewed for progressive fascists to renounce political violence and violent rhetoric.  This would leave progressives embracing just the socialist component of fascism.  Establishing such a limit on themselves, they would have to settle for progressive socialism.  This presents a vulnerability to ever louder calls to debate differences instead of resolving them with coercion, intimidation, and violence.

Why can’t progressive fascists debate?  The answer is that, decades ago, progressives lost all the arguments on their merits.

How can Democrats defend socialism when it has impoverished and tyrannized citizens everywhere and every time it’s been tried?  Won’t capitalism have to be recognized as the only economic system in mankind’s history capable of elevating people out of poverty and increasing liberty?

How will progressives justify regulation of every personal and corporate action?  How will they oppose implementing only necessary, affordable, and beneficial regulations?

When libertarians opine the money you have earned legitimately is yours, what argument will advance the idea that all money belongs to the government from whence it is allocated to the people?  How will leftists advocate for confiscatory taxes instead of low tax rates?

Will advocacy for open borders sound more compelling than having only legal immigration that serves our country’s interests?

Progressive fascists crave social justice even though it brings violence and anarchy.  How will this stack up against citizens’ desire to live in safety in their neighborhoods applying criminal justice?

Where are the arguments from progressives in either party supporting Ever Bigger Government?  Won’t minimalist government appear more compelling on the merits?

Do most citizens appreciate our Constitution anchoring rights of individuals, or do they prefer an untethered, living document with only contingent rights?

Will authoritarian arguments for freedom only within narrowly specified bounds sound better than freedom of everything as long as it’s not specifically forbidden?

Will Marxists convince listeners that words are violence, or will freedom of speech be cherished even if the opinions expressed are unpopular or disfavored?

What new arguments will be made that welfare should be open-ended, and there should be no workfare by able-bodied individuals?

How will consumers be convinced that higher cost, unreliable wind and solar energy with blackouts and brownouts is preferable to lower cost, abundant energy?

Is the U.S. an immoral and degenerate country led by, and populated with, irredeemably racist and unremittingly oppressive people?  Or, will more people be persuaded these United States represent the best nation on earth, and things keep getting better over time?

Will Democrats argue Western Civilization is evil in all respects?  What response will be given to evidence presented that Western Civilization is the best that’s ever been?

Apostate Christians and atheists have found their home in the Democrat party.  Will that party now plainly advocate for their worldview, knowing there’s only this life with the highest goals of hedonism or a struggle to build utopia?  What will be the rebuttal to the Christian worldview that best perceives, understands, and explains reality?

When does life begin?  If it’s not a tomato or a squirrel, what is that newly conceived being?  Is it a human being?  When should new individual human life be protected?  Christians and conservatives have ready answers.  What responses can be given by atheists and progressives that won’t evoke horror and revulsion in many?

Over decades, our culture rejected Christian roots and influence.  We progressed to modernism in our post-Christian time.  Progressivism knowing no limits, modernism has been rejected for a post-reality vision.  Nevertheless, science and facts are useful for describing reality. So, what is the compelling argument by progressives for a reality defined only by imagination and unburdened by what is sensed? That reality is just what political elites say it is today?

Is the grooming of children for sterilization and sexual mutilation going to be defended outright by Marxist cultural theorists?  Won’t conservative advocacy maintaining the innocence of children for as long as possible be received more favorably?  How will arguments go for holding accountable enablers and practitioners when inevitable buyer’s remorse of Frankenstein procedures is expressed?

Will enablers of perverts, predators, pedophiles explicitly be lionized by the left?  Or, is there insurmountable empathy for protection of women and girls in spaces and opportunities?

Are progressive arguments better for group identity and enforced level achievement when compared to those for individualism and exceptionalism?

Will leftist arguments for reparations based on ancestral offenses win the day along with the idea of inexorable systemic racism?  Rather, shouldn’t people, all made in the image of God, be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin?

Everyone’s for equality.  But, is this forced equality of outcomes?  Or, will there be recognition that individual differences means there will always be inequalities of outcomes absent coercion. Aren’t arguments more attractive for equality of opportunities?

For decades, progressives in both political parties have put American interests last in economics and foreign affairs.  Is this defensible?  Contemporary arguments advocate for putting American interests first.  We can’t go in both directions.  Which is most appealing?

World government is the gold ring for many progressive fascists.  Incremental progress has been made over time with innumerable multilateral engagements.  Can these be defended against arguments for only bilateral relationships that best serve our country’s interests?

If progressives can’t win any debate on the merits, then they won’t participate.  It suggests speeches, arguments, and debates should still be used by Christians, conservatives, and libertarians for the purpose of awakening some of the woke.  This will work and be effective so long as freedom of speech endures.  But, the primary goal of progressive fascists will be to re-impose censorship and hollow out freedom of speech.  Censorship will be expanded greatly in scope along the lines of what was implemented in the great trial run during the COVID-19 tyranny.  If progressives can’t win a debate, then there should be no debate.  In the immortal words of Anthony Fauci, “Just do as you’re told.”

It doesn’t bode well for our country when one of the two major political parties disdains virtues and eschews traditional and normal values.  With or without any debate, the progressive fascist grip on the Democratic Party means their pernicious ideas are being mainstreamed. In memory of Charlie Kirk, let us resist those ideas and vanquish them, in debate, winning hearts and minds one by one.



🎭 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. 


Benjamin Netanyahu Says Buying TikTok for Israeli Influence is the “Most Important Purchase Going on Right Now”


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently met with American pro-Israel social media “influencers” to discuss the importance of social media, referring to various platforms as “our most important weapon.”

During the conversation PM Netanyahu noted the most important deal right now to retain U.S. support for Israel, is Larry Ellison’s purchase of TikTok and how it will be used to secure support for Israel. WATCH:


Additional context for this video, below.

Previously, Charlie Kirk was relaying his concerns to billionaire Bill Ackman about GenZ turning away from supporting Israel.  That conversation led to an early August Hampton’s, NY, conference of U.S. influencers organized by Charlie Kirk and financed by Ackman.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu then followed up with a phone call to Charlie Kirk approximately two weeks prior to his assassination. Netanyahu relayed confidence in public opinion countermeasures already underway.

The Israel influence countermeasures include: Alex Karp with Palantir. David Ellison with Paramount/CBS and the enlistment of Bari Weiss. Then, as noted, Larry Ellison with Oracle and the purchase of TikTok, and ongoing discussions with Elon Musk.

[Unmentioned prior influence positioning would include Ted Cruz, Ron DeSantis, Laura Loomer, Mark Levin and Susie Wiles]

That’s the factual background and context for this conversation.

Social media is the new iron dome.



President Trump Optimistic for Gaza Conflict Resolution


President Trump notes the ongoing discussions around the Gaza conflict are producing optimism. Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel are all part of the regional discussion group.

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “I am pleased to report that we are having very inspired and productive discussions with the Middle Eastern Community concerning Gaza. Intense negotiations have been going on for four days and will continue for as long as necessary in order to get a Successfully Completed Agreement.

All of the Countries within the Region are involved, Hamas is very much aware of these discussions, and Israel has been informed at all levels, including Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.

There is more Goodwill and Enthusiasm for getting a Deal done, after so many decades, than I have ever seen before. Everyone is excited to put this period of Death and Darkness behind them. It is an Honor to be a part of this Negotiation. We must get the Hostages back and get a PERMANENT AND LONGLASTING PEACE!” {link}

Interestingly, it looks like Mark Levin is on the outside looking in.

Did Mark Levin lose access?  That would be a major blow to both traditional pro-Israel influence operations and the Levin book purchasing laundry.

In the aftermath of the Kirk Assassination, are there new concerns around the White House about growing conversations in the MAGA community of Israeli influence?

Is Susie Wiles now forced into the role of risk manager, precariously mitigating and/or balancing influence control operations?



Portland Democrat 'Leaders' Set to Go Full Useful Idiots Over Trump's Troop Announcement


RedState 

There's a saying that goes along the lines of how there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes.

But I think at this point that it's inarguable that there actually is a third certainty in life: Democrats doing Democrat things when push comes to shove.

A new report, in fact, suggests that is exactly what's about to happen in Portland, Oregon, in response to President Donald Trump's announcement about sending troops in to use "full force" if necessary in response to ongoing anti-ICE violence in the notoriously far-left, poorly-led blue city, some of which is reportedly being orchestrated by the leftist Antifa rioters that Democrats like to keep telling us don't exist.

RedState has been documenting for years how Democrat so-called "leaders" in Portland have, with rare exceptions, tended to side more often with the purported "peaceful protesters" who routinely wreak havoc on the city than the peaceful, law-abiding citizens who didn't vote for wokeness and chaos and who just want to be left alone to live and work in peace.

It's only gotten worse over the years, sadly, with one of the more recent incidents, which included bringing in a guillotine to an anti-ICE demonstration while playing a song with the lyrics "We got the guillotine, you better run" in the background, being among the many that likely led Trump to come to the decision he did.

And yet now, with Antifa said to be planning a "direct action" event at the Portland ICE facility on Sunday in response to the news, we're learning via Post Millennial investigative reporter Katie Daviscourt that Portland's Democrat Mayor, Keith Smith, and other nearby Democrat mayors, have allegedly drafted a letter that not only condemns Trump taking action but also vows as little help as possible. 

It also touts the "legal resources" they will work to make available to illegal immigrants in the community and agitators alike:

Portland will be providing resources for legal support for protesters (Antifa) and will deploy human rights observers "to monitor, assess, and make determinations regarding the legality of federal action in respect to constitutional rights of assembly, protest, and free expression." 

"We will use all legal tools at our disposal to deny our jurisdictions' personnel, equipment, facilities, and resources from any participation or support of militarized federal actions that target the civil rights of our community, including that of assembly, free expression, or protest unless directly required by local, state, or federal law."

Daviscourt also shared that "Additionally, city sources familiar with the matter told @TPostMillennial of Mayor Wilson's intention to coordinate with Portland hotels to block federal agents/troops from staying in them." Further, she noted that "This joint statement was initially set to go out on Monday following a 3 pm press conference."

Amazingly, the only official statement to come from Wilson as of this writing is to suggest not only that no help is needed but that the only lawlessness and violence that will take place there will be that which he said will be "perpetrated" by the feds - as though Portland has been an otherwise peaceful city:

"President Trump has directed 'all necessary Troops' to Portland, Oregon. The number of necessary troops is zero, in Portland and any other American city. Our nation has a long memory for acts of oppression, and the president will not find lawlessness or violence here unless he plans to perpetrate it. Imagine if the federal government sent hundreds of engineers, or teachers, or outreach workers to Portland, instead of a short, expensive, and fruitless show of force."

Relatedly, Seattle's mayor, Bruce Harrell, has apparently determined that destroying federal property and issuing threats to immigration enforcement agents and law enforcement officials is something protected on First Amendment grounds:

Just... incredible gaslighting going on here. It's no wonder the radicals feel emboldened to shoot at ICE agents. I mean, we have two more weak mayors of American cities who are siding with non-citizens and violent leftist thugs who would be perfectly fine with literally burning down these cities if they found it necessary to make their "point." 

We've seen it before.

I don't even know what to say except to pray for Portland that law, order, and peace will be restored soon. While it is indeed a Democrat-run city where a majority of voters "voted for this," many voters there didn't.



Fed-Up White House Opens Up a Can on Newsom, Walz, Other Anti-ICE Dems in Receipt-Filled Fact Drop


RedState 

Understandably, after the violent attack against a Dallas ICE field office that left one detainee dead and two injured when a deranged gunman reportedly targeted immigration enforcement agents, the Trump administration is at wits' end with the incendiary rhetoric used by Democrats.

Accordingly, the Trump White House is already taking action, beefing up security at ICE locations across the country, with President Trump also authorizing troop deployment to the leftist hotbed of Portland, Oregon, after months of clashes between anti-ICE agitators and law enforcement at the city's ICE detention facility.

"I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” Trump announced in a Truth Social post Saturday, noting he was authorizing them to use "full force" if necessary.


Antifa Responds to Portland Troop Deployment, Things Could Get Really Ugly


And on Friday, the White House released an article published on its website with the headline "Democrats’ Unhinged Crusade Against ICE Fuels Bloodshed."

In it, they noted that years of Democrats "vilifying ICE" have produced violent, deadly consequences for both detainees and the immigration enforcement agents, which, of course, is not cool:

The carnage in Dallas, Texas — where a maniac with “ANTI-ICE” ammo gunned down an ICE field office in an attack clearly targeted at ICE personnel — lays bare the deadly consequences of Democrats’ unhinged crusade against our border enforcement.

Democrats have spent years vilifying ICE as “fascists,” “the Gestapo,” and “slave patrols,” inciting a 1,000% surge in assaults on agents and a wave of Radical Left terror. Their words aren’t just reckless — they’re a battle cry for violence.

The list highlighted statements made by 29 Democrats at nearly all levels of government, including governors, senators, House members, and mayors, referring to ICE in the most disparaging and dangerous of terms. While it's not a complete list, it definitely shows a disturbing pattern of irresponsibility from open borders Democrats.

Not surprisingly, the top three on the list are names that are being floated as possible 2028 presidential contenders:

  • Gov. Tim Walz smeared ICE as the “modern-day Gestapo.”
  • Gov. Gavin Newsom likened ICE to “secret police,” calling them “authoritarian” and proclaiming a “right to push back.”
  • Gov. JB Pritzker claimed the country is becoming “Nazi Germany” because ICE is “grabbing people off the street… and disappearing them.”

The mayors they spotlighted were Chicago's Brandon Johnson, Boston's Michelle Wu, and LA Mayor Karen Bass:

  • Boston Mayor Michelle Wu compared ICE agents to the neo-Nazi group NSC-131.
  • Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson accused ICE of being “secret police” who are “terrorizing our communities.”
  • Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass spread a disgusting, fabricated hoax that ICE “kidnapped” a woman on her way to work.

Not surprisingly, Gov. Newsom's press office is proclaiming that the Trump administration calling them out over their own words is "reckless, dangerous" and "putting lives at risk" - and that it's Trump who "must tone it down":

In other words, shut up, Mr. President and Republicans, while we keep making matters worse.

FYI, Gov: Not. Happening.



Sunday Scripture


Psalm 96:7-10 (NKJV)

Ascribe to the Lord, O families of nations,
ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.


Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name;
bring an offering and come into his courts.


Worship the Lord in the splendor of his holiness;
tremble before him, all the earth.


Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns."
The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved;
he will judge the peoples with equity.