Trump’s Christmas Gift to America: A Year of US Global Leadership and Peacemaking

Trump’s peace-through-strength approach has reversed Biden-era weakness, restoring deterrence, ending conflicts, and reasserting American leadership at home and abroad.

American  Greatness 

Over the last 11 months, there has been a transformation in global security as President Joe Biden’s weak and incompetent foreign policy was replaced by that of one of the strongest US presidents in history, Donald Trump. The stability and peace resulting from Trump’s strong national security leadership is his greatest Christmas gift to America.

It is almost hard to remember the worldwide chaos and malaise caused by Joe Biden. America’s enemies had a field day exploiting the Biden administration’s inept national security policies that prioritized climate change and poorly treated key US allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. The disastrous US withdrawal from Afghanistan ordered by Biden profoundly undermined American leadership and deterrence, emboldening Putin to invade Ukraine as well as Hamas to launch its horrific October 7 terrorist attack against Israel. North Korea’s tests of a record number of ballistic missiles and a massive surge in Iran’s nuclear weapons program resulted from the perception of US weakness under Biden.

President Trump was right when he said in his address to the nation this week that he has significantly improved global peace and security during the first year of his second term.

We have seen a record number of wars and disputes ended this year because of Trump’s peace efforts, including conflicts between India and Pakistan, Rwanda and Congo, Cambodia and Thailand, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Serbia and Kosovo, and Egypt and Ethiopia.

In November 2025, at the urging of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Trump announced a new U.S. diplomatic effort to end the vicious civil war in Sudan.

President Trump’s stubborn determination to stop the fighting in Gaza resulted in his most significant foreign policy victory so far: a 20-point peace plan that won the release of all living Israeli hostages, a cease-fire that is still in place, and a pathway to a permanent peace agreement. Recognition of Trump as the driving force behind this historic peace plan was apparent at a summit last October in Sharm El-Sheikh to endorse the plan, where 30 world leaders almost fell over each other trying to get face time and photos with Trump.

Trump has been especially determined to stop the killing in the Russia-Ukraine War. This has proved far more challenging than he anticipated because the crisis worsened significantly since President Biden and European leaders did nothing to end it.

By contrast, Trump created a peace process to end the fighting in this war that did not exist before. His envoys have held dozens of meetings with Russian and Ukrainian officials to negotiate a cease-fire and a permanent settlement. Although Biden refused to talk to Putin after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Trump spoke with the Russian leader by phone at least eight times this year and held a summit with him in Alaska in August. Unfortunately, Putin has so far defied Trump’s diplomatic outreach.

President Trump’s envoys are currently working to reach a peace deal in the Russia-Ukraine War similar to the 20-point Gaza War plan. Significant progress has been made in convincing Ukrainian President Zelensky to make painful concessions to reach an agreement, although there are still areas where the US and Ukraine disagree. Putin remains the main obstacle to an agreement, as he is sticking to his demands that Ukraine cannot accept and seems intent on continuing and winning the war.

Critics of Trump’s Ukraine peace efforts should recognize that negotiating an end to this conflict will be difficult and time-consuming. It can’t be solved without dialogue and probably will require an extended period of severe economic and energy sanctions against Russia before Putin will start to negotiate in good faith. Although I am hopeful that the current push to secure a peace agreement over the next few weeks will succeed, if it does not, I hope President Trump turns to a long-term strategy of escalating pressure on Putin to make peace until the last day of his presidency. (See my December 5, 2025, American Greatness article.)

President Trump addressed regional security threats from Iran and brokered a peace deal with Tehran to end the 12-Day War last June after Israel and the US destroyed Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This was a perfect example of “peace through strength.” New US/Iran talks could be held in early 2026. In addition, by demonstrating American power and resolve, the US airstrikes against Iran boosted the standing of Trump’s diplomats to strike peace deals to end other global conflicts.

The Trump administration’s successful effort to stop illegal immigration and seal America’s southern border helped bring peace to the US homeland by stemming the flow of illegal migrants and drugs into our country. An estimated 11 million illegal migrants crossed into the US over the previous four years because the Biden administration refused to secure our borders. By contrast, illegal border crossings have fallen by 95% or more this year from the peaks seen in 2023 and 2024.

Trump is trying to address the root cause of the massive influx of illegal migrants, gangs, and drugs that crossed into America during the Biden administration with another exercise of peace through strength: the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine to reassert US dominance in the Western Hemisphere. This effort has escalated military pressure on Venezuela through a huge U.S. naval and air buildup in the Caribbean. The official goal of this military operation, known as “Operation Southern Spear,” is countering narco-terrorism and drug trafficking linked to Venezuela. However, an unofficial goal is driving from power Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, an illegitimate leader who the U.S. Department of Justice charged in 2020 with narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, corruption, money laundering, and leading a criminal organization known as the “Cartel of the Suns.”

The Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine is intended to promote peace and stability at home and in the Western Hemisphere by asserting American power in the region and countering bad actors and other regional threats. It also recognizes that diplomacy cannot resolve every global conflict—and that military force is sometimes necessary to achieve peace and stability.

We know from history that peacemaking is hard, not every world conflict is solvable, and some peace agreements will fail. As a result, it is likely that some of President Trump’s peace efforts will not succeed. But Trump’s Christmas gift of peace is not the number of global conflicts he ultimately ends, but the hope he has generated by making a strong America a driving force for world peace.

Podcast thread for Dec 20

 

Does the feeling of disillusionment ever fade away?

Putting the Economy on a War Footing

American  Thinker 

On December 10, I attended the U.S. Naval Institute’s Defense Forum 2025 in Washington, D.C. Its topic was “Accelerating U.S. Shipbuilding to Pace the Threat.” The threat is the Chinese navy which now outnumbers the U.S. Navy in number of ships, though not (yet) in total capabilities. The USN is weighted towards larger ships with more firepower and more advanced technology. We still have 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, with three more under construction compared to China’s three smaller conventional carriers with one more under construction which may be nuclear. But China’s smaller surface warships bristle with anti-ship missiles that put our carriers at risk. And they are building warships faster than we can.

Beijing outnumbers us 66-53 in attack submarines, but ours are all nuclear powered whereas China has a mix of nuclear and diesel-powered subs. However, in the shallow waters of the First Island Chain the diesel subs are not to be dismissed. They are quiet and well-armed and do not need the range of American subs that operate globally. Indeed, because Beijing’s aggressive aims are nearby, their fleet is concentrated and has air and missile support from bases along its coast.

The contest for control of the Western Pacific and the security of the U.S.-led alliance system (Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, and Australia) is an arms race. As William Toti, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of War, told the Defense Forum, “The mantra at the Pentagon every day is ‘War Footing.’” It is 1938 again, proclaimed Toti, referencing when America launched its massive shipbuilding and rearmament program in the years leading up to World War II. The United States did not wait to mobilize until after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Due to the years it takes to build major warships, this was a buildup just in time to fight the war, but not soon enough to deter it. These warships surged into action in 1943, just in time to replace the USN’s heavy losses in the first year of the war. Without them, had the isolationists who dominated public opinion (but fortunately not national leadership) prevailed instead, WW II would have been lost.

Eighty-five years ago, the industrial strength of the United States was unmatched. Launching out of the Great Depression, the Arsenal of Democracy fielded the best-equipped military the world had ever seen on a global scale while still making significant contributions to the armament of our allies. And this effort was made without impoverishing the home front. There were, of course, shortages as factories shifted from cars and appliances to tanks and warplanes, but there was also a feeling of purpose and unity that empowered the Greatest Generation. Compare that to the hollow “lost generations” of today.

As historian Harry Veide has shown in Betting Against America: The Axis Powers Views of the United States, Japan and Germany were both aware of America’s economic superiority but still chose war because they did not believe soft, decadent Americans could muster the effort to generate real strength. While progressives and isolationists in the U.S. were attacking the “merchants of death” in the defense industry, citizens in Japan were voluntarily donating money beyond what they owed in taxes directly to purchase weapons. Hitler believed only the Jews in America were anti-Nazi, not that it mattered since a “mixed race” people could never unite to win a modern war. Hitler foolishly declared war only four days after Pearl Harbor because he had no respect for the American character.

Today, there is again the image of a deeply divided America. Not just bitter partisan politics where party is so often placed above country. Foreign adversaries can recruit not only protesters but also terrorists to cripple U.S. security policies. Yet, Americans have rallied to great causes in the past, often overnight when pushed. The new problem is that decades of neglect have weakened our ability to respond by deindustrializing the economy and gutting the infrastructure and supply-chains of strategic sectors.

Ideas have consequences. The post-Cold War malaise did not just see the 600-ship fleet built by President Ronald Reagan decline to 284 warships today, but the loss of generations of shipyard workers, the contraction in production capacity and the stagnation of technology. The popular notions of “globalization” and “the end to history” meaning the end to Great Power competition and war swept away all concerns in economic policy about how strategic assets -- from factories to research labs to critical minerals and energy sources -- are distributed between nations. For three decades the West (but not its enemies) were crippled by a liberal ideology prevalent across the spectrum. The small wars on the periphery did not call forth rearmament. It was Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that reintroduced the world to major warfare for major stakes.

President Trump’s demand in his first term that NATO members commit 2% of GDP to defense has been raised to 5% in his second term, a goal even we are struggling to meet due to the bloated spending and debt run up in corrupt “peacetime” budgets. Last week NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte made a speech warning that “conflict is at our door” and that “we must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents or great-grandparents endured.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz compared Russian President Vladimir Putin’s strategy in Ukraine to Hitler’s assault on Czechoslovakia in 1938. NATO economies have a 10-1 edge over Russia, enhanced with more advanced technology. They just need the time (and will) to convert that advantage into military strength to put Russia in its place.

The U.S. has a natural interest in European security, but its primary focus is China, whose threat is aimed directly at America. Fortunately, there is a bipartisan consensus that the threat must be met. This was evident in the nearly identical calls for action at the Defense Forum from Senators Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), both of whom sponsor legislation to further expand shipbuilding. (There were grimaces from the audience after Kelly declared that “partisanship harms national security” given his dangerous stunt of pure partisanship in calling on the military to disobey “illegal” orders from President Donald Trump, meaning any order liberals do not like. It is a shame to see a man with such a splendid career as a Navy pilot and astronaut degenerate into a political hack.)

President Xi Jinping has told his generals and admirals to be ready for war by 2027. It is doubtful he will attack Taiwan while a strong president who has shown a willingness to use force is in the White House. But in 2029 there will be a new, untried president. His willingness to act could be doubted, especially if the balance of military power has appeared to shift against the U.S.-led Asian alliance. It is far better to deter wars than fight them, but deterrence rests on the enemy’s belief that we can and will fight. Making it clear that we are on a “war footing” is essential to maintaining peace through strength.

It will not be easy or pretty. The message from the Defense Forum is that we will need help from our allies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s suggestion that her country could respond militarily if China attacked Taiwan was welcomed as its small but powerful fleet of advanced warships would be crucial in a fight. South Korea, which can build warships in half the time of U.S. shipyards, is providing capital, technology, and training to Americans to boost our productivity. And Toti told the Defense Forum the idea of building U.S. Navy ships in Korean shipyards “was not off the table.” With a time horizon closer than the end of this decade, every option, every bit of energy, must be focused on getting the job done.

Freedom Lovers Aren’t ‘Fascists’

American  Thinker 

There’s nothing ‘right-wing’ about defending the Bill of Rights.

Being called “right-wing” or “fascist” is detestable. The label implies a preference for dictatorship, authoritarianism, and government supremacy over personal freedom. The exact opposite is true. I would describe myself as a supporter of autarchism in the sense that we should rule ourselves and not be ruled by others.

As someone who believes strongly in individual liberty, self-reliance, and self-government, I distrust all repositories of power -- whether such power resides in government, corporations, or social institutions. As Lord Acton advised: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In my estimation, nothing in this physical world can be trusted with power for very long. Regrettably, all forms of power eventually become abusive.

Nineteenth-century diplomat and political writer John O’Sullivan (the man who coined the phrase “manifest destiny” in 1845) helped to popularize a sentiment shared by other luminaries of his time such as Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Mark Twain: “The best government is that which governs least.”

Government is Leviathan. It knows only how to grow its size and the number of its tentacles until it is capable of wrapping its predacious powers around everyone and everything.

Emissaries of Big Government globalism speak of government as a benevolent “friend” and “parent” whose job is to “protect” and “take care of” the people. But government is none of those things. Government is coercion. It is force, including the threat of lethal force. It robs people of their labor in the form of taxes. It presumes to know what is best for everyone. It insists on telling people how to use their property and how to live their lives. It intrudes into family households and inserts itself between parents and children. Whereas a friend will fight beside you and a parent will sacrifice everything for your well-being, governments start wars recklessly, sacrifice citizens callously, and ignore the pleas of those suffering.

The German Nazis, Italian fascists, Soviet communists, and Chinese Maoists were all Big Government socialists who justified murdering their citizens for the good of the government. Government is not a “friend” or a “parent.” It is a homicidal maniac that society tries to keep somewhat restrained lest it indulge its basest instinct: to kill everyone in its path.

Government does not “protect” people. It uses people to its advantage. Government does not “take care of” people. It bullies them, steals from them, and keeps them divided against each other. Anybody praising the “virtues” of Big Government is nothing more than a macabre salesman for institutional slavery, indemnified violence, and legalized theft.

Those of us who identify as liberty lovers and defenders of freedom harbor profound distrust of government. It is therefore galling when Big Government leftists, socialists, globalists, Marxists, and even outright communists (especially those exercising power as so-called “journalists” working for multinational corporate news organizations) call us “right-wing.”

What is “right-wing” about wanting government bureaucrats to just leave us the hell alone? I try to put myself in the small wingtips of someone such as CNN’s Brian Stelter. When I say, “I want government out of my life,” how does he hear, “Right-wing fascism is overtaking America”? Is Brian obtuse? Maliciously dishonest? Both?

I find it perplexing to hear Stelter, Jake Tapper, and their fellow ideological clones on cable news describe those of us who most ardently defend the Bill of Rights as somehow being threats to American freedom. Look around the universe of political writers today, and you will find that almost all of the staunchest advocates for free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and protections from warrantless government searches and mass surveillance are Americans whom Stelter, Tapper, and their cohorts would describe as “right-wing.”

On the other hand, the very leftists and globalists whom CNN anchors adore are daily calling for mass censorship in the name of fighting “disinformation” and “hate speech.” Stelter has made an entire career out of playing a “truth-telling hall monitor” who believes he is empowered to tell social media companies what should be stricken from public debate. He has explicitly called for a “harm reduction model” of permissible speech by illogically claiming that “reducing a liar’s reach is not the same as censoring freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is different than freedom of reach.” He defends censorship in the name of “freedom” because he expects to be the corporate news umpire who gets to decide what is true or false.

Could there possibly be anything more authoritarian than CNN personalities claiming the authority to declare official truths?

Nonetheless, CNN ignores its own assaults on free speech and instead decries “right-wingers” who believe parents should have a say over whether elementary school libraries include books on “transgenderism,” abortion, sexual fetishes, and pornography. CNN’s talking heads even call those of us who oppose “drag queen story hour” for kindergartners “Christian nationalists” -- as if trying to be a moral person, a faithful Christian, a protective parent, and a patriotic American were the hallmarks of “fascism.”

Effective communication between human beings is difficult even when people speak the same language, share the same culture, and enjoy similar beliefs. When politicians and “journalists” defame as “fascists” those of us who fight for expansive personal freedom and against government tyranny, they rob society of peaceful public discourse and light the fuse of future violence.

Those in the “journalism” business who use words to sell fear and provoke bloodshed know exactly what they’re doing. When you demonize your political enemies long enough, some eventually get murdered. Charlie Kirk wasn’t the first, and he will not be the last. After all, there is an entire army of fascist Antifa terrorists who hunt “right-wingers” for sport. Or is that too much truth for Stelter’s “harm reduction model” to permit me to say out loud?

🎭 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. 

Yes, Trump Pardoned 70-Year-Old Colorado Election Clerk, Gov. Polis Should Too

As Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, Tina Peters’ supporters call on Gov. Polis to reflect that spirit.

The Federalist

President Donald Trump recently announced a full pardon for Tina Peters, the former Mesa County clerk and recorder convicted on state charges related to a 2021 election system breach. In swift response, Colorado’s Democrat leadership asserted that Trump lacks the authority to issue pardons for state crimes. This has sparked a movement among Peters’ supporters, who are now circulating a public petition urging Democrat Gov. Jared Polis to grant her mercy before Christmas.

Peters was convicted in 2024 on seven counts, including attempting to influence a public servant, after allowing unauthorized access to voting equipment in an effort to uncover alleged fraud in the 2020 election. Judge Matthew Barrett of the 21st Judicial District sentenced Peters to nine years in prison, labeling her “a charlatan” and “a danger to all of us.” Despite this, Peters and her attorneys firmly assert her innocence, claiming the charges were driven by political motives and that her sole aim was to safeguard free and fair elections.

Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, asserted that Peters was both overcharged and over-sentenced because Colorado state laws allow her to access and archive the election system’s hard drive. Most important, he states, “Peters altered no election results. Not one vote was changed because of her actions.” Davis also emphasizes that the nine-year sentence is not only excessively harsh, but he finds Judge Barrett’s decision to require Peters to spend the first six months in the all-population Mesa County Detention Center particularly troubling. This facility offers no separate accommodations for nonviolent offenders like Peters.

Peters reportedly had no prior history of criminal conduct except for a traffic ticket before this case. Additionally, the 70-year-old (she was 69 when charged and sentenced) reportedly grapples with several health conditions, including fibromyalgia and a previous lung cancer diagnosis, which has left her occasionally short of breath. This context underscores the need for a more compassionate approach to her case.

Peters’ lawyers and supporters have been lobbying Trump for a presidential pardon. In conjunction with this effort, Peters filed a federal lawsuit asking to be released on bond while her appeal is reviewed. Last Monday, Federal Magistrate Judge Scott Varholak denied Peters’ request, emphasizing that it is the responsibility of state courts, not federal courts, to determine her sentence.

After Trump issued his pardon for Peters a few days later, Colorado state officials, including Democrat Gov. Jared Polis, voiced their strong objections. They argued that presidential authority does not extend to state law and that a president cannot pardon someone for state-level convictions. Other state officials, as well as the Colorado County Clerk Association, also urged Polis to deny the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ request to transfer Peters from a state prison to a federal facility.

In response to the pardon impasse, conservative Colorado radio host Kim Monson has launched an online petition, calling Polis to show “kindness, compassion, and mercy” by releasing Tina Peters by Christmas Eve. This would enable Peters to visit her 97-year-old mother on Christmas and receive necessary medical treatment.

Citing a report from a liberal newspaper, The Colorado Sun, Monson highlights that Polis has issued pardons in each year of his governorship. In the previous year alone, Polis pardoned 22 individuals and commuted the sentences of another four right before Christmas. Among those who received commutations were two convicted of first-degree murder and one with a significant rap sheet that included a sexual assault.

Monson contends that since Polis has demonstrated willingness to use his clemency powers for those with violent pasts, he should extend similar compassion to a first-time, nonviolent offender like Peters. Monson is encouraging the community to sign an online petition, which has already garnered nearly 2,000 signatures from people across America. The petition will close at 9 a.m. on Dec. 22. Monson plans to print the petition, have it notarized, and personally deliver it to the governor’s office that afternoon.

The timing is intentional, reflecting the deeper meaning of the holiday season — a time for forgiveness, redemption, and compassion.

As Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus — who offered mercy to the undeserving and suffered to bring salvation — Monson and other Peters supporters call on Gov. Polis to reflect that spirit. In a divided political landscape, acts of grace can bridge divides and affirm shared values of humanity. Whether Polis heeds this plea remains to be seen, but the campaign underscores a poignant appeal for kindness amid ongoing ideological divisions.

9th Circuit Protects Professor’s First Amendment Right To Make Fun Of Land Acknowledgments

The Federalist

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled Friday that the University of Washington is not allowed to punish a professor for making fun of the “land acknowledgments” they tried to force on their staff.

The win at the circuit level comes after the district court sided with the school.

“A public university investigated, reprimanded, and threatened to discipline a professor for contentious statements he made in a class syllabus. The statements, which mocked the university’s model syllabus statement on an issue of public concern, caused offense in the university community,” Judge Danial Bress, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote in the majority opinion. “Yet debate and disagreement are hallmarks of higher education. Student discomfort with a professor’s views can prompt discussion and disapproval. But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor. We hold that the university’s actions toward the professor violated his First Amendment rights.”

The court found that the school subjected computer science professor Stuart Reges to punitive employment actions and reprimand, based entirely on his speech disagreeing with their policy.

In 2019, when schools, corporations, politicians, and many others were partaking in their performative (and utterly embarrassing) “racial reckoning” overtures, the University of Washington adopted a policy recommending professors put a “land acknowledgment” on their course syllabi.

“Land acknowledgments” are meant to falsely state that, in actuality, Europeans did not build any of the United States of America, and that the land is still owned by the American Indian tribes that were once there.

The school even offered model language: “The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.”

Reges took the opportunity to point out how absurd that statement, while noting that none of those tribes can claim any land, because they did not build anything close to civilization on it.

“I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property, the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington,” Reges’ 2022 version of the statement in his syllabus read.

Faculty, staff, and students went into a frenzy of despair over Reges’ statement, with some administrators calling it “offensive” and others whining on social media.

According to Courthouse News Service, Judge Milan Smith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said, “As I read these briefs. I was struck by how sensitive the students or others were. Some people would call it ‘woke,’ — they call whatever they want — but the reality is you’ve got people who were upset.”

The school asked Reges to remove the statement, then removed it without his consent, and ultimately opened a punitive “harassment” investigation into him after he refused to remove it, finding that Reges created an “immediate and significant disruption.” The school also created a competing class in order to lure students away from Reges’ class and point them toward a professor who would regurgitate the “land acknowledgment” statement.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) represented Reges in the lawsuit, and the 9th Circuit has sent it back to the district court to determine the proper remedy for Reges.

Michigan Democrat Candidate Fantasizes About Hurling Beers At Justices Barrett, Kavanaugh

The Federalist

Democrats love to proclaim that their side doesn’t have a political violence problem. But if that’s true, then why do so many of them keep fantasizing about harming their conservative opponents?

The latest incident showcasing the left’s penchant for violence involves Michigan Democrat Mallory McMorrow, who got busted on video dreaming about harming Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. McMorrow currently serves as majority whip in the state Senate and is running in the Democrat primary to succeed Sen. Gary Peters in the U.S. Senate.

In the clip published by Townhall Media, McMorrow can be seen taking questions at what appears to be a campaign event. The Michigan Democrat is asked by one attendee whether she believes there’s “any sense” in “writing” or “calling” the Supreme Court, presumably about ongoing and contentious legal matters.

In her response, McMorrow said that, “as a Notre Dame grad,” she is disgusted “on a personal level” that Barrett graduated and taught at the university’s law school. After detailing a conversation she reportedly had with an associate of hers — who allegedly saw Barrett “with Brett Kavanaugh at a tailgate last weekend” — the Senate candidate then openly fantasized about chucking beers at the two originalist justices.

“I was like, ‘I would not be able to control myself,’” McMorrow said. “There would be beers thrown in peoples’ faces.”

🚨WATCH: Democrat Candidate for Senate in Michigan Mallory McMorrow says that she would not be able to stop herself from hurling cans of beer at Amy Coney Barrett & Brett Kavanaugh if she saw them in public.

Despicable! pic.twitter.com/aQTsPBnvQC

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) December 18, 2025

Unfortunately, leftist threats against conservative members of the Supreme Court are not a new phenomenon.

In spring 2020, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took the steps of the high court to threaten Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, telling the two judges that they would “pay the price” and “won’t know what hit [them]” if they didn’t rule the way he wanted them to on an abortion-related case. As The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway previously noted, that moment came years after left-wing “mobs took over Capitol rooms and buildings and pounded on the doors to the Supreme Court shouting, ‘Burn it to the ground!’” during Kavanaugh’s contentious 2018 confirmation hearings.

The left’s threatening rhetoric and behavior against the court’s conservative justices got even worse following the leak of SCOTUS’s 2022 Dobbs draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.

In an apparent effort to intimidate the Dobbs majority into changing their votes, left-wing anarchists showed up at the doorsteps of these justices’ homes. One Democrat-aligned group even went as far as to prod its members to target Barrett’s children and church.

Then-Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Biden Justice Department’s declination to bring charges against these apparent violations of federal law culminated in the attempted assassination of Kavanaugh. The judge (Deborah Boardman) overseeing the would-be assassin’s trial handed down a far lighter sentence (just eight years) than what prosecutors were seeking for the attempted murder (at least 30 years to life in prison).

McMorrow is hardly the only Democrat seeking higher office to fantasize about harming her political opponents.

Earlier this year, unearthed communications between Virginia Democrat Jay Jones and a state House delegate showed Jones previously fantasizing about assassinating the commonwealth’s then-Republican House speaker and the death of his children. Despite these horrific revelations, Virginia voters elected Jones to become their chief law enforcement officer (attorney general) during the state’s November elections.

The UK Is a Police State

Townhall 

A month ago, we told you the U.K. is poised to eliminate the centuries-old cornerstone of Western jurisprudence: the jury trial. The right to be judged by a jury of one's peers prevents the government from having total control of one's fate.

But now it's even worse, and the once great British Empire has fallen into an Orwellian police state. Not only is the country eliminating jury trials for some offenses, but it is also allowing magistrates to sentence people to up to two years in prison without the right to appeal.

That 40 percent of appeals from magistrate courts were upheld suggests there are many innocent Brits who will be falsely imprisoned.

That's 2,000 cases. That's 2,000 people who will be wrongly imprisoned.

There is a solid case for doing this.

It's all projection.

There is no other way to interpret this.

They gave up their guns, and they lost their freedoms.

Incredibly scary.

It's nothing short of an abuse of state power.