It’s Hard Not to Laugh at the Downfall of Eric Swalwell

Townhall 

It’s always the people you most suspect…

Everyone hates it when bad things happen to good people. In the case of the demise of Eric Swalwell, we’re lucky that isn’t the case. Swalwell is one of the dumbest and worst people to ever serve in the federal government, and I include all bureaucrats. The smug Californian was done in by his arrogance, and that’s worth laughing at.

Democrats have a natural protection from scandal, as the people with the jobs that are supposed to out such things are fully on their team. Not many steroid users were called out by their teammates; they just happily high-fived them at home plate after each homerun. Politics is no different, except the ‘roids are replaced with Viagra.

Democrat Eric Swalwell had a reputation for being a scumbag who slept around, cheating on his wife, and getting aggressive with young ladies. I didn’t know this, most people didn’t, but I can’t say I’m surprised – he always came off as someone who got high on his own supply, believing his own press releases.

No, I didn’t help cover up for Swalwell; the left-wing industrial complex did.

As the story broke, “journalists” started admitting they’d been hearing from women for years about Eric’s aggression and infidelity with staffers and others. They started admitting it on social media, which is kind of a weird flex to claim you’re so well sourced as a journalist that you had the “big” story that just broke, but kept quiet about it for reasons that make sense outside of partisan loyalty. How many more women were groped, grabbed, or otherwise violated because this “open secret” in D.C. was kept secret?

After years, Swalwell likely thought he’d not only gotten away with it, but that he could in perpetuity, because why not? Reporters knew it and didn’t report it; there was no reason to think that he hadn’t gotten away with it.

Why else would someone with that background – and likely that present, because there’s really no indication that he stopped – think to run for governor of California? A backbench d*****bag belching rhetorical bombs on MS Now every once in a while, sure, but the top of a ticket in the most populous state? I knew he was stupid, but damn.

Did you notice how quickly Democrats turned on him? Not in the media, they were too busy trying to pretend they didn’t know all along – covering their own a**es took up a lot of their time – but his fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives. There was no “That’s not the Eric Swalwell I know” or “I need to hear more about this because I’m shocked.” No, it was “He has to drop out of the governor’s race” almost immediately after the idea of the story started floating around.

Adam Schiff, another noted liar who was actually censured by the House for his history of lying, bailed right away – pulling his endorsement. Schiff was slower to distance himself from Ed Buck, a major Democrat donor who is serving time for luring young black men to his house and supplying them with drugs to have sex with them, killing two of them.

Nancy Pelosi and Hakeem Jeffries said he had to go, which means they not only knew and were hoping it would never come out, but it’s pretty likely that there is a whole lot more that has not been reported yet – a Footlocker’s worth of shoes left to drop.

Yesterday, the smarmy Swalwell announced his resignation from Congress as Democrats began to place conditions on expelling him.

We’re supposed to be impressed by how Democrats are acting since this story broke, but how many of them did all they could to prevent it from breaking? How many of Eric Swalwell’s fellow Democrats were hoping he’d either lose the primary for governor of California and simply leave Congress quietly at the end of his term, or even win the nomination and the election, thereby becoming the state’s problem and not theirs? Probably all of them, or at least all of them who didn’t engage in similar activities with him – pervs of a feather tend to flock together around the vulnerable.

Everything about Eric Swalwell was already gross; these developments only confirmed that “ick” vibe his vacant eyes only suggested. The bigger story here is how many people knew and actively covered it up, laughed it off, or participated. Unfortunately, all the people who could shed light on that likely fall into one or more of those categories, which means we’ll likely never know.

If you ever wondered how someone like Jeffrey Epstein could operate the way he did for so long, look no further than this and vote accordingly. 

Podcast thread for April 14

 

find a new hobby.

The Center-Right’s Long March Backward

American Thinker 

One of the few rules of politics that has held throughout history, almost without exception, is that right-liberals, in the long run, lose.  The sort of Thatcherite political coalitions that prioritize “open markets” and “economic freedom” while being indifferent to cultural affairs might win elections in the short run — often in the wake of the left severely overstepping its mandate — yet they always end up ceding more political ground than they seize.  They always finish their terms having barely slowed down the pervading leftward cultural drift they were elected to stave.

This recurring outcome suggests a structural weakness within the “fusionist” center-right: It lacks a coherent vision for social order.  Rather than functioning as a true political movement, centrist liberalism — often labeled “mainstream conservatism” in the West — operates more as a form of political escapism.  Its adherents either treat politics as an extension of market logic or attempt to minimize political engagement altogether.

Real politics concerns itself with asserting a particular social order.  Political actors seek to take control of the machinery of governance so as to write the rules of the prevailing social game.  But the center-right does not do this.  It does not seek to assert its own social order — to write the rules.  Rather, the center-right exploits the prevailing order, seeking to bend the left’s rules in its favor for short-term financial gain.  Hence, while the center-right can issue vaguely “ideological” platitudes about the virtues of the open market and entrepreneurial capitalism, it does not aim for broad-scale economic reforms that would foster a free, prosperous, and entrepreneurial social order.  Rather, the center-right constantly clamors for privileges, exemptions, carve-outs, and marginal reforms within the prevailing order.

There are two reasons for this. The first is brute, unenlightened self-interest.  Whereas the general interest would be well served by a broad program of pro-market reforms, the interests of individual rightist actors are served better still by attaining special privileges for themselves and shutting the competition out of the market.  This is why, in the center-right’s political strongholds, truly pro-market initiatives, like phasing out agricultural subsidies, reducing defense procurements, or easing licensing requirements are not only neglected, but actively suppressed.

The second reason, more damning, is that the center-right simply doesn’t think in terms of Big Political Ideas.  It does not contemplate what would be a just and prosperous social order for a nation as a whole.  It is preoccupied by the short- to medium-term business performance of its donor base.  Conservatives thus are always content with making marginal and limited gains.  Any grander agenda is outside their scope of interest.  Expecting a political bloc with this mentality to take real power is like expecting to get rich by coupon-clipping.

This nullity of vision manifests in one of the center-right’s favorite canards: upholding “individualism” over “collectivism.”  But conservatives’ panegyrics to individualism ultimately just serve to excuse the center-right’s refusal to concern itself with the social order as such.  Although it is generally good counsel for individuals to assume agency and responsibility for their own life path, this is not politics.  Politics begins where such counsel ends; it is about sustaining a legal and social environment suitable for human flourishing, setting the “rules of the road” upon which the individual can set his course.  Politics, by definition, deals in the “collectivist” dimension of human life.  The center-right’s invectives against “collectivism” as such are just another means through which it avoids any discussion about the common good — another evasion of politics.

The left, by contrast, does not suffer from any preoccupation with individual initiative or enterprise.  The left operates by cultivating all sorts of patronage networks — degreed professionals, aggrieved racial and sexual minorities, and several others — and deploying those networks to seize political power.  When they win, leftists then lavish their base with patronage — government sinecures, transfer payments, specialized loans, the works.  It is precisely the left’s discouragement of — and incapacity for — individual initiative that makes it such an effective political force.  One could go so far as to say that the left’s commercial ineptitude is its superpower; as the left can’t generate wealth, it has no recourse but to seize wealth through political marauding.

Conservatives pretend to be squeamish about this crude politicking, imagining that their scruples prevent them from getting in the gutter with the left.  The reality is that the center-right is more than willing to indulge in all sorts of graft, but its graft is transactional and not political.  What makes it non-political is that power is left out of the equation.  The center-right does not concern itself with leveraging its graft to build a political coalition or patronage network.  The mid-tier bourgeois GOP donor does not say to his employees, “Because the Republicans passed a corporate tax cut, I can now give you a $1,000 bonus” — that would be, horror of horrors, collectivist.  Rather, he keeps all the gains for himself, and then he is shocked when his entire workforce votes Democrat next term, and the corporate tax is raised higher than it was before the initial cut.

Although this is partly due to greed and short-sightedness, the more salient cause — once again — is that the center-right dislikes politics.  Conservatives simply don’t like to think about building broad popular constituencies, cultivating patronage networks, or contemplating the general social welfare.  They mainly wish politics would go away so they could just make money.  Hence, the left gets to drink the right’s milkshake by faithfully tending to a full stable of client groups and dependents, whereas conservatives must perennially entice large chunks of “swing voters” to their side just to have a chance.

Sadly for the center-right — but thankfully for the rest of us — this state of affairs is likely nearing its expiration.  The center-right’s game of playing by the left’s rules and grasping at whatever crumbs it can find is viable only so long as the left has any reason to play along.  But the political dominance of the left is approaching the point where the left no longer needs to be so accommodating.  This gives the right no alternative but to oppose the left in a serious manner.  Rather than weasel through various political nooks looking for scraps of graft, the right must finally seek to exert influence on the fundamental social order.  This means first that it must build a core patronage base that directly shares in the party’s fortunes; second, it must develop some conception of a righteous social order to entice the masses into buying into its program; third, it must follow through on pursuing that vision to earn credibility.

The fact that it is impossible to imagine the center-right even flirting with these basic prescriptions is yet another indicator of how far it is from being a real political program.  One could say that achieving this political cognizance will mark the metamorphosis of the center-right to a legitimate and long overdue right-wing.

The Left’s Desperate War on Turning Point USA and Free Thought

The Left’s Desperate War on Turning Point USA and Free Thought

Ashli-Meghan Eskeldson for PJ Media

AP Photo/Denis Poroy

Why would you do that? 

One unknown student at the University of California, Berkeley, intentionally threw coffee on flyers for a Turning Point USA event with pro-life host Lila Rose, who is also affiliated with the Live Action group.

The most shocking part was that the student sarcastically said, “Wow, I’m interested in hearing more about this event,” and then stealthily and purposely spilled coffee, turning the posters into a liquid-damaged, illegible puddle.

He or she pretended to be interested, perhaps just to be rude, make Turning Point look bad, or even to make the TPUSA volunteers handing out materials at a booth not suspect the student’s intentions, allowing them to get close to the Lila Rose promotional items.

Notably, the UC Berkeley Turning Point USA chapter has apparently turned the other cheek regarding the student who ruined their work.

Class of ’26, I know you worked hard, but no live graduation ceremony speeches at NYU for you because some kid ad-libbed.

Students cannot speak live during graduation ceremonies at New York University because of recent rules added after one peer ad-libbed and talked about off-topic and inappropriate content and, according to Campus Reform comments, ruined the experience for everyone else.

Unfortunately, starting this spring, the more standard students using tribute speeches to celebrate their graduation have now been compelled to record their content beforehand and wait for it to be approved by staff who work in the graduation department.

Live speeches from the Class of 2026 at NYU are now seen as something that could become rude or disruptive to the audience, like talking or texting in a movie theater.

An intolerant professor comes crawling back and cries, “But my Constitutional rights!”

At the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, an anthropology professor who was fired after tweeting comments that appeared to celebrate Charlie Kirk’s death has now come crawling back, desperately seeking to be rehired.

Eager to regain her prestigious academic position and status, she has filed a lawsuit claiming her Constitutional rights were violated. She insists her commentary on Kirk was protected speech.

That argument quickly falls apart. Kirk was completely innocent. Her tweets strongly implied he deserved a painful death simply because he disagreed with certain ideologies. She directed social media humiliation at Kirk’s surviving family and posted content that could have incited others to wish him dead — or worse. Someone reading her words might have felt encouraged to act on the veiled threats against Kirk or his loved ones.

The Constitution protects criticism of public figures and the government, but this professor abused that privilege and abandoned basic common sense. As Campus Reform noted, “the university’s interest in campus safety outweighed her claim to protected speech at that stage.”

By sharp contrast, President Donald Trump tweeted a straight-to-the-point and civil “Good riddance” to Robert Mueller — but only in retrospect, after Mueller had already passed away. Trump never verbally attacked Mueller while he was still alive. It was Mueller who attacked Trump.

Charlie Kirk dropped out of college to work on Turning Point USA as the scammy parts of higher education unraveled before his eyes. Yet he is likely still rolling in his grave at the sight of grown professors harassing those with alternative ideas.

Draw a big red X on people teaching different perspectives.

Some students drew a big red X on Chloe Cole’s face on flyers advertising her speaking event at Northern Arizona University. The students actively discouraged others from listening to Cole’s and Turning Point USA’s side of the story and labeled her a “grifter.”

🎭 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. 

Understanding the Fox News Podcasters

Conservative Treehouse 

Against the backdrop of President Trump calling attention to the narcissism podcast universe, several people have made inquiry about relationships, motives, financial structures etc.

For those unaware, the traditional media framework of billionaire and corporate opinion/information shaping, modified itself for a new digital era.  However, the motives that underpinned the original control mechanisms remain the same, only the venues are different.

RED SEAT VENTURES HERE

As an example, most reasonably intelligent people caught on to the manipulative political content pushed by Rupert Murdoch, his family of control agents and the Fox Corporation media empire.  However, most people are unaware that Fox Corporation controls the information space of well-known current and former Fox News employees and contract agents that shifted to the podcast venues.

Fox Media purchased Red Seat Ventures {Citation} and expanded the narrative control operations through “podcasting.”  As a consequence, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Piers Morgan, Bill O’Reilly and many more still work for Fox Corporation, just in different venues.

When Tucker Carlson is interviewing Megyn Kelly during a podcast, or when Piers Morgan is interviewing Bill O’Reilly during a podcast, it is no different than Megyn Kelly interviewing Piers Morgan on Fox News television.  The platform changed, but the relationships -and more importantly the information content itself- is the same.  The same control mechanisms apply; it is just a different distribution channel.

Instead of watching Fox News, you are essentially watching Fox News ‘podcasting’ division, via Red Seat Ventures.

♦ Red Seat Ventures (a Fox Corporation subsidiary) controls the advertising, distribution and financial payments to the same cast of characters that appeared on Fox News broadcast.  The same leverage and pressure points apply, albeit with a plausible deniability in order to push a false claim of independence in order to manufacture the optics of credibility.

You can explore Red Seat Ventures here, overlay the intention as expressed by Fox Corporation here, and see exactly how this internecine system is connected.

When you hear people say, “I no longer watch Fox News,” yet they still watch Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, Piers Morgan, Dana Loesch, Bill O’Reilly, Greg Gutfeld, Jesse Kelly, etc., you might take note those people probably don’t realize they are just watching a different version of the Fox Corporation.

This is why none of the former pundits, now part of Red Seat, will say anything critical of Fox Corp.  They are still beholden to the control masters.  Many people are unaware of this reality in the background.

♦ There is also the Red Apple Podcast Network, another corporate conglomerate of well-known pundits like Larry Kudlow, Roger Stone, Greg Kelly, Sean Spicer and many more.  Again, these are not ‘independent’ per se’, they are part of a corporate commercial system with terms and conditions that apply to the employees, the podcasters.

♦ Then you have Westwood One, (aka Cumulus) another corporate media conglomerate which includes popular names like Benny Johnson, Mark Levin and Dan Bongino.  Again, these are not independent voices per se’ – they are contract agents with financial relationships to the mothership, the corporation.  Again, terms and conditions apply.

What you will notice in all of these enmeshments is a system of podcast tribalism, now captured within the corporate dynamic.  When a podcaster is interviewing a podcaster for podcast content, you are essentially watching a circle of narcissists discussing each other.  The watcher or listener is not receiving ‘information’, they are participating in the distribution of specific financially aligned narratives – albeit with an ‘independent’ flare.

If your participation in the podcast sphere is akin to watching WWE wrestling, then you have the appropriate filter for the performances within each broadcast.

However, if you participate from the perspective of information gathering; raw, researchable or cited information to expand objective knowledge; you might end up in a crazy matrix where you are led to believe that aliens are living down the street, black helicopters are following your every move, Melania is about to divorce Donald, the FBI is an honorable institution, or even that Reverend Franklin Graham is busy building a billionaire doomsday bunker in Alaska.

As the years were unfolding you likely recognized the Wall Street corporate media system was going to respond to the changed and collapsed credibility environment.  Well, podcasting is the 2026 iteration.

Artificial Intelligence is going to replace all of these ‘voices’ eventually, as government systems learn and adapt to the private sector information space.

Just something to keep in mind.

American Youth Are Returning To Church, But They Need Encouragement To Keep Them There

Older Christians must commit to providing new converts with the support, discipleship, and community they need to thrive in life-long faith.

The Federalist

The late James Q. Wilson wrote in 2002: “The right and best way for a culture to restore itself is for it to be rebuilt, not from the top down by government policies, but from the bottom up by personal decisions. On the side of that effort, we can find churches — or at least many of them — and the common experience of adults that the essence of marriage is not sex, or money, or even children: it is commitment.”

Now, nearly a quarter-century later, new evidence shows that young adults, tired of digital isolation and cultural cynicism, and desiring authentic faith and community, are flocking back to churches.

A few weeks ago, The New York Times reported on the wave of people, many of them young adults, returning to the Catholic Church, despite decades-long cultural attacks on that institution. “In our age of uncertainty, and in our age of great anxiety, is a thirst and hunger for God and stability that faith brings to people’s lives,” said Archbishop Mitchell Thomas Rozanski of St. Louis.

In addition, the overall percentage of Gen Z identifying as Christians reportedly increased from about 45 percent in 2023 to 51 percent in 2025.

As Rozanski noted, these young adults are thirsty and hungry for God and the stability that faith brings in a world of increasing chaos.

This is very encouraging because, as I write in my new book, What Really Matters: Restoring a Legacy of Faith, Freedom, and Family (Fidelis, 2026), it is faith that gives people purpose, makes men strong and compassionate leaders, provides protection for women and children, and makes America steadfast and vibrant.

It is faith that brings us together as a nation, rather than the “all about me” mantra of secularization that drives us into individual tribes seeking to glorify self over others. America was built on civic groups and other associations, such as churches. And without a rock such as local religious bodies to attach to, people become morally, emotionally, and physically adrift.

It was these associations that Alexis de Tocqueville said “form a society.” Without them, society disintegrates into individualism and moral confusion — the very ills that plague America in 2026.

As Wilson noted, being committed to a church body strengthens other commitments in life, including marriage and family, which provide the cornerstone upon which a healthy society is constructed. The fruit of such commitments is restorative. Within healthy marriages and families, children can better know the love of two parents, and society no longer needs government-subsidized Band-Aids to mask problems that can only be repaired by faith and personal dedication. Most of all, strong marriage and family bonds restore hope for a solid foundation of faith, fidelity, and the life-changing results these bring.

A return to Christianity will bring about not only individual but corporate restoration for our land as people allow religious truth to inform their personal decisions. This will inevitably result in Americans better honoring their commitments to marriage and family and treating others with dignity and respect — a far better alternative to secular governmental “solutions” that offer no antidote to loneliness or hope for empty souls, while pitting people against each other instead of bringing them together. 

It is our role to continue stoking the religious revival occurring among American youth to ensure it is not merely a fad but the start of a lifelong journey of faith that will benefit all members of American society. While these numbers are encouraging, they must be sustained over time. Older Christians must commit to providing new converts with the support, discipleship, and community they will need to flourish in genuine, life-long faith.

That is the “legacy of faith, freedom, and family” we need to continue to rebuild. It’s the only way we will ever make our nation once again a shining “city upon a hill,” giving hope that no government program or secular solution could ever offer.

We Have Only One Real Ally in the Middle East

We Have Only One Real Ally in the Middle East

The war with Iran has revealed a long-standing reality: Israel is the United States’ only true ally in the Middle East.

Devin Sper for American Thinker

The war with Iran has revealed a long-standing reality: Israel is the United States’ only true ally in the Middle East. Our other supposed allies in the region -- Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE (United Arab Emirates), refused to allow us to use our own military bases or their airspace even as those countries came under direct attack from Iran. Saudi Arabia has now belatedly permitted the United States to use only one Saudi airbase. Otherwise, these countries have so far only been willing to defend their airspace against incoming Iranian drones and missiles, with Kuwait mistakenly shooting down three USAF F-15s. This raises the question of why the United States should bear the expense of maintaining military bases in these countries, and we are now reportedly considering a proposal to replace them with a base in Israel.

The United States is a net exporter of oil, while our European and Asian allies receive much of their oil and gas via the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump therefore expected their cooperation in keeping the waterway open and called their unanimous refusal to do so “shocking” and “cowardly.” After meeting with the President, Senator Lindsey Graham stated "The repercussions of providing little assistance to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning are going to be wide and deep for Europe and America." In a Truth Social post, Trump also called out Japan, Australia, and South Korea for saying they would not be sending warships.

French president Emmanuel Macron declared that his country would “never take part in operations to open or free the Strait of Hormuz in the current context.” Along with Spain, France refused to allow the United States to use its bases for the purpose of the war and now refuses to allow the U.S. to use its airspace to resupply Israel. This despite a March 1 Iranian drone attack on France’s Camp de la Paix naval base in Abu Dhabi and the killing of a French officer and wounding of six others by another Iranian drone in Iraq. President Trump labeled France “very unhelpful” and suggested that if she and other European countries need fuel from the Strait of Hormuz, they should go get it themselves. Israel has drawn similar conclusions, and on March 31 the Ministry of Defense announced it was ending all military contracts with France due to her persistent hostility towards Israel since the October 7, 2023 massacre by Hamas.

The U.K., once our closest and most reliable European ally, is no better, with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer saying that while the U.K. would be “taking the necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies, we will not be drawn into the wider war.” Even this has proven untrue, as an Iranian drone attack on a British base in Cyprus went unanswered. Likewise, NATO has failed to respond to Iranian attacks on an Italian base in northern Iraq and multiple ballistic missile attacks on NATO member Turkey. NATO secretary general Mark Rutte issued a statement saying that the alliance is “not itself involved.” In other words, NATO will not honor its core commitment under Article 5 that any attack on a NATO member is an attack on all. In the same vein, German defense minister Boris Pistorius said, “This is not our war; we have not started it.”

This reveals NATO for what it has always been: a collection of countries relying entirely on the United States for protection while refusing to defend themselves or each other. On March 27, at a recent conference in Miami, President Trump concluded that the United States no longer “need[s] to remain in NATO.” “We were always there for them, but now, given their behavior, I don’t think we need to be there for them. Why should we be there for them when they are not there for us?” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the U.S. has done "the heavy lifting on behalf of the free world" regarding the threat from Iran and the security of the Strait of Hormuz. He urged allies to "step up" and assist with the critical waterway, noting that securing it is not solely an American responsibility. Similar sentiments have been expressed by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said on March 31 that the United States has to reexamine whether NATO has “now become a one-way street where America is simply in a position to defend Europe, but when we need the help of our allies, they’re going to deny us basing rights, and they’re going to deny us overflight.”

If we define an ally as one who will come to our defense, and not just one who expects us to defend them, then we have no real allies in Western Europe. It is now clear to the U.S. administration and military that Israel is one of our few real allies.

The joint U.S.-Israeli operation in Iran has shown Israel to be not only a willing ally, but a highly capable one. Israel hosted U.S. aircraft when the Gulf states closed their airspace to us and fully participated in the war as an equal partner with the United States. It was Israel that decapitated the Iranian regime’s leadership, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It was Israel’s Mossad that has provided critical on-the-ground intelligence in Iran that has been essential in targeting. Israel also has close, long-standing relations with ethnic minorities in Iran, such as the Kurds, and with neighboring countries Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan.

U.S. military leadership has recently described cooperation with Israel as "extraordinary" and "historic." Coordination occurs at every level of the chain of command. Israeli officers are embedded at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) bases, while U.S. officers are stationed at the Kirya, Israel's military headquarters in Tel Aviv. CENTCOM Commander Admiral Brad Cooper visited Israel as the official guest of the IDF chief of the General Staff, Eyal Zamir. Officials report between 4,000 and 5,000 daily calls between the two militaries to synchronize efforts. Hegseth characterized Israel as a "steadfast partner" with both the "will and capability" to achieve "incredible effects" through coordinated targeting. He described the combined force as bringing "sheer destruction" to adversaries.

Will the United States withdraw from NATO? That still remains to be seen. What is already certain is which countries are our real allies, and which are not. Whatever the outcome of the war, the unprecedented close cooperation between the political and military leadership of Israel and the United States has produced a new level of mutual respect and trust that will have positive, far-reaching effects.

Image: Pixabay

G

'Here's Something You Must Understand About the Left'

Townhall 

Scott Jennings delivered the keynote address at the Texas Public Policy Foundation's 2026 Texas Policy Summit on Friday, revealing the one thing conservatives must know about the left: "They hate success. They hate it when people make it on their own. They hate it when you don't need them."

He went on to describe the left's efforts to persuade Americans to rely on Democrats, citing issues ranging from transgender policy debates to criticism of the American Founding as racist, as well as opposition to the traditional nuclear family. He also referenced Charlie Kirk, noting his work in opposing left-wing movements and helping lead a generation toward conservatism.

"Here's something that you must understand about the left," Jennings said. "They hate success. They hate it when people make it on their own. They hate it when you don't need them."

"Think about what they teach our kids. That America was founded on racism. That our country is rotten at its core. That capitalism is evil. That hard work is for suckers. That merit is a dirty word. That the nuclear family is oppressive, especially to women. That faith is for idiots and rubes for people who are from Kentucky and Texas," he continued. "They run people for the United States Senate who think there are six genders. And that we can solve the climate crisis by taking away all of your bacon. Is it any wonder that Charlie spent his life on college campuses trying to reach young people? He saw what was happening."

"I think when that shooter pulled the trigger and killed my friend in Utah, he thought he was ending a movement," Jennings said. "He thought if he killed Charlie Kirk, he could kill what Charlie stood for. That the rest of us would get the message. That we would heed the warning. Silence yourselves, or we will do it for you. I think that's what he thought. Certainly, what the people who cheered on the assassination thought. And make no mistake, there were thousands who cheered it on."

"But in trying to silence one voice, I think they created thousands," he said. "In trying to end a conversation that day, I think they started millions. And that is the thing we learned about faith and freedom. You can't kill them. You can try to suppress it, and you can try to silence it. But it always finds a way. Like water finding cracks in a dam."

The U.S.–Israel Alliance is a Strategic Bargain

The U.S.–Israel Alliance is a Strategic Bargain

One ally holds the line — for all of us.

Rod D. Martin for Frontpage Magazine

Aid to Israel is not charity. It is one of the most profitable strategic investments the United States has ever made — and a prototype of Trump’s vision for the rest of our alliances.

There is a small but vocal strain of “America Only” commentary that endlessly repeats a falsehood: “We get nothing from our aid to Israel.”

Au contraire, mon frère.

The truth is, America’s alliance with Israel is not a favor or a handout. It is a major pillar of American strength. It’s a strategic investment, an extraordinarily inexpensive way for the United States to buy intelligence, military innovation, strategic reach, regional leverage, and a reliable democratic ally in the most dangerous and unstable region on earth.

Even if you strip away every moral, cultural, religious, historical, and civilizational consideration — and there are many — the U.S.-Israeli alliance would make overwhelming sense on the coldest possible national-interest grounds.

Israel is not merely an ally. It is a force multiplier. It makes American power cheaper, smarter, and more effective than it could be otherwise.

And that points to something larger still. Israel is not just a valuable ally. It is the prototype of Trump’s vision for the rest of our alliances. A competent, heavily armed, technologically sophisticated regional partner that can handle the ordinary threats in its own neighborhood without direct American intervention. That allows the United States to support with depth, integration, and intelligence, while retaining the ability to apply decisive power when the threat is too large for any local state, or even several acting together, to handle alone.

This worked in the 12-Day War. Donald Trump wants to make it work in Europe and Asia as well, standing up our allies as partners, not dependents.

That is certainly how NATO should work, but too often has not. That is how Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia should work, and increasingly do. That is what a sane American alliance system looks like: not dependence, but partnership; not protectorates, but pillars. Pillars capable of securing their own regions under normal circumstances, so America doesn’t have to do all the lifting, defend everywhere at once, and spend itself into oblivion.

In a world like that, America becomes dramatically stronger. America can concentrate force. America can choose its moments. America can remain the arsenal, the backstop, the guarantor, and the finisher — without also serving as the “policeman of the world.”

Netanyahu’s Israel is the proof of that concept.

Israel Handles Threats Before America Has To

America spends an average of $3.8 billion a year on Israel, or one-fiftieth (1/50) of what we’ve sent Ukraine. Hardly any of that leaves the United States: almost all of it goes to U.S. defense contractors for joint U.S.-Israeli projects. The critics speak as if America is “giving” Israel money. “Partnership” is the correct term, and we’re picking up our share of the bill.

In Washington terms, $3.8 billion is a rounding error, a fraction of our spending on Ukraine and barely more than one-third (1/3) of what we spend on Somali daycare fraud (“Learing Centers”) in Minnesota alone (and wait ’til you see Gavin Newsom’s California!).

By stark contrast, the money we send Israel actually buys something.

One of the least appreciated benefits is this: Israel often acts quickly when America would otherwise be forced to act later, but at a far higher cost.

When Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program in 1981, the whole world howled. But for America to do the same thing would have risked a global war with the Soviet empire. When Israel destroyed Syria’s reactor in 2007, it did the world a similar favor, as became even more apparent once the country fell into civil war. Israel’s repeated covert and overt actions against Iran’s nuclear program, weapons pipelines, terror networks, and proxy infrastructure have likewise delayed, degraded, or disrupted threats that otherwise would have required war ten to twenty years sooner.

The contribution is not theoretical. Israel kills terrorists. Israel degrades missile programs. Israel disrupts arms transfers. Israel penetrates enemy networks. Israel destroys strategic threats before they mature. And every time it does, America benefits.

The alternative is not some peaceful vacuum. There are no vacuums in geopolitics. There are only spaces one power controls until another power fills them.

When America retreats, Iran advances. When America hesitates, Russia probes. When America grows confused, China arrives with money, ports, telecom networks, surveillance systems, and diplomatic cover. That is the actual choice-set. The world does not freeze while Washington holds seminars and struggle sessions.

Israel helps prevent that outcome in the Middle East by being the one country in the region both willing and able to confront the West’s enemies on a daily basis. And because Israel does so with its own soldiers rather than ours, the United States spends far less blood and treasure.

This is the point the anti-Israel Right keeps missing. They speak as if support for Israel “drags” America into war. In fact, a strong Israel is essential to keep America out of unnecessary wars. Indeed, in all of history, only in the last year have U.S. and Israeli forces felt the need to fight side by side in any offensive war.

Israel handles threats locally, with local knowledge, local stakes, and local force. It absorbs pressure that would otherwise move outward. It is not a drag on American power or wealth: it costs less than a single U.S. submarine every year. It is a substitute for American power in precisely those contingencies that should be handled regionally if at all possible, and without an American footprint.

That alone is worth the investment.

Israel Is an Irreplaceable Weapons Laboratory

Now add the military-technological side, which is sure to prove even more important in the decade ahead.

America’s defense-industrial base is formidable, but it has too often suffered from sclerosis: bloated procurement, slow acquisition cycles, doctrinal lag, bureaucratic caution, and peacetime assumptions in a wartime age. Trump and Hegseth are making a difference. But it’s a big aircraft carrier to turn.

Israel has the opposite problem. It lives under immediate threat. Missiles actually fall there, as much in peacetime as not. Drone swarms are not hypothetical. Electronic warfare is not a panel discussion. Interception economics are not an abstraction.

That pressure produces innovation. And America benefits immensely.

Iron Beam, Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow, Trophy, advanced drone warfare, cyber-defense architectures, signals intelligence integration, electronic attack, layered missile defense — these are not merely Israeli assets. They are part of the U.S. strategic ecosystem. Some feed directly into American capabilities. Others offer combat-proven lessons American planners would be fools to ignore.

And — a bit louder for those in the back — all these technologies are joint projects with the United States and essential to U.S. defense.

Iron Beam and related directed-energy systems are revolutionary. The historic problem of missile defense has always been cost asymmetry: the attacker spends little; the defender spends much. Israel is helping crack that equation. Once the cost per intercept falls from hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to $2 or $3, the entire offense-defense balance changes: indeed, every modern missile or drone becomes obsolete. The risk of nuclear war drops to nearly zero. 

As Bad As Swalwell’s Scandal Is, Luna Warns It’s About to Get Much Worse: ‘He May Go to Jail’

RedState 

Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna (FL-13) dropped a series of explosive allegations against embattled Congressman Eric Swalwell, warning that the California Democrat’s spiraling sexual misconduct scandal could land him behind bars.

It's a sensational claim, yes. But the fact that Swalwell has so spectacularly imploded that he was forced to resign so swiftly suggests we're dealing with a different kind of situation here.

Luna hinted at the issues Swalwell is facing regarding an alleged video circulating on social media of the disgraced lawmaker interacting with someone she has described as a sex worker.

As RedState's Sister Toldjah reported earlier, Luna wondered on X about the person who may have filmed the video, asking, "Eric, why don't you tell us a little about who was filming the video of the female sex worker?"

---

All Eyes Turn to Swalwell's Bestie, Sen. Ruben Gallego, As Scrutiny Intensifies

The 'Who Knew What and When' Phase of the Swalwell Scandal Begins

---

In a bombshell appearance on Fox News with host Jesse Watters, Luna indicated that she had received “forensic reporting” confirming the video is real. Worse, she indicates she knows a little more about the person behind the video than she initially let on.

"I do think that he has serious criminal problems on his hands, and I do think that he might end up in jail," Luna said.

"Not only did I receive forensic reporting showing that you know, that infamous video of him in the hotel room was indeed him — it was not AI-generated — but I'm also being told that ... more stuff is going to be dropping in the next 24 hours, and that also potentially the individual that recorded that video in the hotel room was a female and she was underage," the congresswoman claimed.

Watters' reaction says it all. It's a pretty shocking claim. Though he correctly points out that the video has not been confirmed by Fox, and any context for it is pure speculation at this point.

"If what you're saying is true," Watters said. "That is very, very, very bad news."

Swalwell announced his resignation from Congress earlier today, after multiple women — including a former staffer — accused him of sexual misconduct and assault, with one alleging he raped her twice while she was too intoxicated to consent.

In addition to the bombshell claims, Luna contends that Swalwell's behavior had been known to the media for years, yet they did little to investigate and report it to the public.

"I will say many people on the Hill knew about this, many reporters have come forward ... saying that they had heard stories about this," she contends, later adding, "they knew about it, they did not report on it."

You mean the media that covered up the Biden autopen/mental incapacity scandal would keep the criminal behavior of a Democrat under wraps? Wild.

"Now we're looking at the criminal activity, and I stand by what I said, because I saw again, the forensics report of that video, and if that is true, I would suggest that the Manhattan DA look into that," Luna concluded the segment.

The Manhattan DA's office has already initiated an investigation into the sexual assault allegations.

Just when you thought Swalwell's scandal couldn't get any uglier, Luna claims, there's "more disgusting stuff" on the horizon? It's hard to believe it could get much worse.