On Wednesday, Defense Secretary James Mattis issued a warning to the North Korean regime that made President Trump&#8217;s &#8220;the fire and the fury&#8221; rant seem downright staid by comparison. According to Mattis:
<blockquote>
The United States and our allies have the demonstrated capabilities and unquestionable commitment to defend ourselves from an attack. Kim Jong Un should take heed of the United Nations Security Council&#8217;s unified voice, and statements from governments the world over, who agree the DPRK [Democratic People&#8217;s Republic of Korea] poses a threat to global security and stability. The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.
</blockquote>
That&#8217;s some pretty harsh language from a man with significant credibility in the business of breaking things and killing people.
It&#8217;s also a warning North Korea should heed. One of the big questions about Trump&#8217;s rhetoric on Tuesday was whether it was merely overheated Trumpian superlative-laden nonsense. That question was exacerbated by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson&#8217;s statements this morning that Trump was not attempting to escalate the military threat inherent in the situation.
But Mattis isn&#8217;t Trump, and doesn&#8217;t merely spit hot fire for the sake of doing so. If Mattis is talking openly about &#8220;the end of its regime and the destruction of its people,&#8221; that means that military options are almost certainly on the table. And that means that China will be paying attention, and ought to put significant pressure on Kim Jung Un to step aside or at least back down.
It is, as the kids say, lit.

<script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

NO BLUFF: ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis Says North Korea Must Back Down, Or Face ‘The End Of Its Regime And The Destruction Of Its People’

CONTINUE READING

We received welcome and amusing news on Thursday: Stephen Colbert will be done in very short order — and the Left is going nuts.
Colbert has not been funny for at least a decade. There was a time when he served as a correspondent on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and he was funny. Then he did The Colbert Report, which was him as a left-winger trying to mock and parody Bill O&#8217;Reilly. It was intermittently funny. Then they made him the late-night show host at CBS. 
And he was abysmal. 
Now, CBS is announcing that they are done with Stephen Colbert because of the cost of his show and because of his low ratings. CBS executives issued a statement: “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert will end its historic run in May 2026 at the end of the broadcast season. We consider Stephen Colbert irreplaceable and will retire The Late Show franchise at that time. We are proud that Stephen called CBS home. He and the broadcast will be remembered in the pantheon of greats that graced late night television.”
By “irreplaceable,” do they mean “we will get rid of him and never replace him”?
That is not what irreplaceable means. If I say that my wife is irreplaceable, what I mean is that I&#8217;m going to stay married to her forever. I don&#8217;t mean that I&#8217;m going to toss her to the side of the road and never get married again.
“Remembered in the pantheon of greats that graced late night television.”
I don&#8217;t think so. In fact, I don&#8217;t think he&#8217;ll make the top ten. 
Perhaps the top hundred (if there are even that many).
CBS continued: “This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show&#8217;s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.”
However, Variety <a href="https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/cbs-cancel-late-show-stephen-colbert-financial-decision-1236464356/">speculated,</a> “There has been growing speculation that both Colbert and Jon Stewart, who hosts one broadcast of Comedy Central’s ‘Daily Show’ each week, could be under growing scrutiny from executives at Skydance Media, which is slated to acquire Paramount Global, the parent of both CBS and Comedy Central. David Ellison, who leads Skydance, has projected an image of being intrigued by the politics espoused by President Donald Trump, who Colbert and Stewart routinely skewer in monologues and commentary.” 

So the blue sky Left is going crazy over this. They believe that Paramount is firing Colbert in order to help President Trump in some way, which is really an absurd contention given the fact that Stephen Colbert does not have ratings.
His ratings are trash. He has terrible ratings, period. End of story.  When Greg Gutfeld is eating your lunch on a cable network, that proves that you&#8217;re not doing a very good job in late-night. 
Colbert has not been funny for years and years and years. 
I think we should all remember Stephen Colbert&#8217;s legacy together. Here are some sterling examples:
“Why should our soldiers be fighting radicals in a civil war in Afghanistan? We&#8217;ve got our own on Capitol Hill!”
“No one came to Trump&#8217;s big, stupid birthday parade.”
“MAGA stands for Make America Grass Again.”
“You attract more skinheads than free Rogaine.&#8221; 
&#8220;You talk like a sign language gorilla who got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin&#8217;s cock holster.&#8221;
What will we do without scintillating jokes like that?
We will laugh a hell of a lot more, and life will be better because he was a terrible late-night host.
Jimmy Kimmel of ABC  went on Instagram to write, “Love you, Stephen. F*** you and all your Sheldons, CBS.”
There’s an opportunity for ABC to do the funniest thing ever.

<script async src="https://www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>

Stephen Colbert Is Gone, Laughter Is Back

Not all comedic heroes wear capes.
Shane Gillis — who was on SNL and canceled on SNL before he ever did an episode, then was rehabbed because we now live in the post-cancel culture era — has become one of the most famous comedians in the country. 
Somehow, some way, Shane Gillis, who is incredibly politically incorrect, who is willing to go all the way to the edge on his jokes, and who probably has some rather conservative leanings, was hired to be the host at the ESPYs.
I just enjoyed the living hell out of this, and I wanted to share it with you because it is really funny and indicative of the fact that if you are a comedian who is not of the radical Left, people on the Left get very angry at you.
They won&#8217;t laugh at you. They leave you hanging. 
But Shane Gillis simply doesn&#8217;t care, and that&#8217;s what makes him unbelievably charming.
The ESPYs are typically an exercise in pandering. Because ESPN is a left-wing network, they go out of their way to play into left-wing social tropes. 
Shane Gillis didn&#8217;t do that. Instead, he started taking shots, and a bunch of people caught strays. 
Gillis on WNBA star Caitlin Clark: “When Caitlin Clark retires from the WNBA, she&#8217;s going to work at a Waffle House so she can continue doing what she loves most: Fist-fighting black women.”
That was a riff on the fact that the WNBA turns into a hockey game when Caitlin Clark plays because she&#8217;s bullied by various members of the WNBA contingent, who are mostly black, supposedly because she&#8217;s being favored by the league for being white.
Even the ESPY crowd couldn&#8217;t help but love that joke.
That wasn’t even his best WNBA joke of the night. The next one was an all-timer: “Four-time WNBA All-Star Brittany Hicks is here. Give it up for Brittney, everybody,&#8221; which was followed by tepid applause. “I&#8217;m joking around. That&#8217;s my friend&#8217;s wife. I knew none of you knew WNBA players.”
ESPN, of course, has a pretty large stake in the WNBA doing well. Thus, Gillis taking an enormous dump on the entire league is pretty spectacular stuff. 
He also launched a really good immigration joke as well: “Joe Rogan actually wanted me to be here to host this award show so that I could capture Adam Silver because Joe thinks he&#8217;s an alien, and Donald Trump wanted me to be here to capture Juan Soto for the same reason. It&#8217;s an alien joke. Who booed up there? Shut up.”
What was funny about this is that people seemed a little bit uptight about it. That&#8217;s not even a right-wing joke. It’s not clear where his sympathies lay in that joke, but people are just so used to left-wing humor that the fact that the joke was not a left-wing joke left them absolutely puzzled.
Gillis also did a January 6 joke and an Epstein joke. He said, “Donald Trump wants to stage a UFC fight on the White House lawn. The last time he staged a fight in D.C., Mike Pence almost died. You don’t have to do that &#8230; I didn&#8217;t write it. Actually, there was supposed to be an Epstein joke here, but I guess it got deleted. Probably deleted itself, right? Probably never existed, actually. Let&#8217;s move on as a country and ignore that.”
It&#8217;s worth checking out his full set. He did end with a fitting tribute to Norm Macdonald, who told an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgHWStNUpvo">O.J. Simpson joke</a> at the ESPYs long ago that basically got him canceled from ESPN.
“There&#8217;s one thing I want to say before I get out of here, and this is a dumb joke,” Gillis said. “You guys aren&#8217;t gonna like it, but it was just a Norm MacDonald joke that I loved when he hosted the ESPYs, and I&#8217;m gonna do it now: ‘Travis Hunter won the Heisman Trophy this year. He&#8217;s the first defensive player since Charles Woodson to win the Heisman. Congratulations, Travis Hunter winning the Heisman. That&#8217;s something they can never take away from you unless you kill your wife and a waiter, in which case they can take that away from you.’”
Full props to Shane Gillis for doing the thing that nobody at ESPN wanted him to do.
Whichever general manager decided that Shane Gillis was going to be the host of the ESPYs doesn&#8217;t have a job today, but you know what, sir or madam, hats off to you. 
Excellent. Well done, Shane Gillis.

<script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Shane Gillis Destroys The ESPYs … And Wokeness

If you’re an originalist or a conservative, there&#8217;s a basic rule of thumb when it comes to judicial appointees: If you don&#8217;t have a track record as an originalist or a conservative, when you enter the bench, there&#8217;s a good shot that very, very soon you will swivel to the Left.
This is also true in the world of universities.
It’s also true in the world of Hollywood. 
If you go to Hollywood and you don&#8217;t have an abundantly clear, long-standing track record as a religious conservative who stood stalwart in the face of left-wing aggression, there&#8217;s a good shot that pretty quickly you are going to cave because the pressure to be eaten up by the social values of the Left in Hollywood is so extreme. 
That is apparently what has happened with the Chip and Joanna Gaines show, “Back to the Frontier.” They present themselves as devout Christians, and a lot of their fans are Christian and faith-based.
But the new series features a gay couple with adopted children, and a lot of people are upset with Chip and Joanna Gaines because of this. They&#8217;re saying, “Hold up a second. You purport to be religious Christians, and this is a show that I would normally watch with my family. But now here you are normalizing what is — by any sort of traditional Christian theology — sinful behavior.”
If you&#8217;re a secular person and you&#8217;re not a Christian, none of this may matter to you, but the reality is that people who are traditionally faithful to Scripture believe that one man, one woman, and their children should be the basic standard for how families form.
So, for Christians who have made their money on being Christians, to actually now start infusing their shows with left-wing social values is a problem. 
The idea of the show is that they&#8217;re going to replicate the conditions of homesteading back on the range in the late 19th century. 
The gay couple on the show is Joe Riggs and Jason Hannah. Riggs told the <a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-entertainment/tv/2025/07/14/chip-and-joanna-gaines-tv-show-draws-backlash-over-same-sex-couple/">Dallas Morning News</a> that the show was an “opportunity to put ourselves out there and help normalize families like ours.”
That, of course, is the goal whenever Hollywood does something like this: to say that all forms of family are morally the same.
This goes all the way back to the early 1990s, when in “Mrs. Doubtfire,” you had Robin Williams lecturing the American public that all forms of families were essentially morally equivalent. 
Hannah opined, “When families like ours are visible, it opens doors for others to feel safe, loved, and validated. Visibility isn’t just about being seen; it’s about making sure no one feels alone.”
Chip Gaines was inundated with complaints from his fan base because the Chip and Joanna Gaines fan base is Biblically loyal. 
The complaints pointed out, “Listen, obviously this phenomenon exists in life. Gay marriage is legal in the United States, but that doesn&#8217;t mean that you as a creator, a person that we trust with our time and the fact that our kids watch your shows, should be mainlining left-wing social values into your shows.”
Chip Gaines then called all those people intolerant, saying in a <a href="https://x.com/chipgaines/status/1944344464215957561">post</a> to X, “Talk, ask [questions], listen.. maybe even learn. Too much to ask of modern American Christian culture. Judge 1st, understand later/never … It’s a sad sunday when &#8216;non believers&#8217; have never been confronted with hate or vitriol until they are introduced to a modern American Christian.” The reality star ended the post with an emoji of a broken heart.
Okay, dude. That is about the worst approach that you can take to your fan base. 
Put aside the morality of what he&#8217;s saying, which is insipid. It turns out that traditional morality does draw lines between certain behaviors and other behaviors. It doesn&#8217;t mean you have to treat people badly. It doesn&#8217;t mean that you have to be insulting or awful to them. 
But — if you are a traditional, religious person and you believe that traditional marriage is the way that God intended for the world to work and Nature designed the world to work — if that is what you believe, then you should stand by that, even when it is politically unpopular. 
That doesn&#8217;t even mean that you can&#8217;t have friends who are violating your faith standards. All Judeo-Christian teaching teaches that everyone sins; that’s the normal way the world works. 
But that does not mean that the sin itself becomes normalized, which is exactly what the show intends to do.
Many of the followers of Chip and Joanna Gaines are not only upset with the fact that the show is featuring this sort of stuff, they&#8217;re upset with the fact that Chip is now sneering at them, looking down his nose at them, and suggesting that the real problem here is not that he has violated his own faith standards by promulgating a set of values that is unChristian, but that he believes that Christians themselves, by objecting to that promulgation, are thus demonstrating that they&#8217;re intolerant and vicious and mean by objecting to the normalization of what Christians consider to be sinful. 
That is not mean or intolerant. That is simply saying there is a standard, and if you purport to be an upholder of that standard, you should abide by it.
If Chip and Joanna Gaines were a secular couple who had never purported to be Christian, and they were making a show like this in Hollywood, no one would care. No one would bat an eye because the expectation would be different. 
When you say that you are an adherent to a particular philosophy or a particular ideology — and this is true politically as well — and then you are disloyal to that idea, you should be called out.
Chip and Joanna Gaines have made their money off American Christians who believe that Chip and Joanna Gaines are like them.
They have been under fire for a long time. They were accused of being anti-LGBTQ. That’s because if you are a traditional Christian, Hollywood calls you a bigot and a homophobe.
If we&#8217;re to be honest with each other as a civilization and as human beings, we should be able to be honest about what we perceive to be the actual moral standards that are being violated. And just because you have friends who violate the moral standard, that doesn&#8217;t mean that the moral standard ought to be obliterated, because then there&#8217;s no moral standard at all.
Niceness and civility are not moral standards. They are good things, but they aren’t moral standards. They are not weight-bearing moral concepts. They are standards of behavior. And you need more than standards of behavior to build a civilization. 
If you are tasked with upholding a standard, you should uphold that standard. If you betray the standard, you should be called out for that. 
That is true politically. It is true with regard to religion. It&#8217;s true with regard to life more generally. 
So I think Chip and Joanna Gaines owe their fans a major apology. 
I talk about this cultural issue because it undergirds so much of politics and our social life together. That’s because two things can be true at once. One: You can hold a strong moral standard, a standard that matters. Two: You should be tolerant toward people in terms of how you treat them. 
You can treat people nicely who don&#8217;t abide by your moral standards as long as they&#8217;re not actively hurting anybody else. 
But that does not mean the moral standard itself should change.

<script async src="https://www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>

Chip And Joanna Gaines Sell Out

​​I want to offer condolences to the family and all of the followers of John MacArthur, the Southern California preacher, who died on Monday at the age of 86. He was someone I would venture to say was my friend.
John MacArthur was an amazing human being. He had millions and millions of followers in the Christian community.
In its obituary, Christianity Today <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/07/died-john-macarthur-study-bible-expository-preaching-controversy/">wrote</a>:
<blockquote>MacArthur said the most important mark of his ministry was that he explained the Bible with the Bible, not cluttering up sermons with personal stories, commentary on current events, or appeals to emotion, but teaching timeless truth. The longtime pastor of Grace Community Church said a good sermon should still be good 50 years after it is preached. “It isn’t time-stamped by any kind of cultural events or personal events,” MacArthur said. “It’s not about me. And it transcends not only time, but it transcends culture.”
He published the MacArthur Study Bible in 1997, with 20,000 notes on specific verses, as well as an index of important doctrines, introductions to each book of the Bible, and suggested Bible-reading plans. It sold 2 million copies in 22 years. His New Testament commentary—a series that Moody Publishers put out in 34 volumes over 31 years—also sold more than 1 million copies.</blockquote>
Of all the people I have known in this sphere — and I have known quite a few — MacArthur was absolutely staunch in his defense of the Bible. He never shied away from the messages of the New Testament, and that made him controversial. 
And that was a good thing. 
In the first interview I did with him, a lengthy interview, he spent 30 minutes of the interview talking to me about why I ought to convert to Christianity.
As a Jew, not only was that not insulting, it was absolutely useful.
Why?
Because he was saying what he believed, and I think that was a good thing. 
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2238-democrats-abandon-barack-obama?elementPosition=1&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
The reason I considered him a friend is because he&#8217;s somebody who cared about my eternal life.
We could have disagreements on what would happen with regard to heaven or hell, or whether the New Testament was true or not, depending on whether you&#8217;re a Christian or a Jew. 
But I was never upset by the fact that he believed I ought to convert to Christianity, because, of course, many Christians believe that I ought to convert to Christianity. That is not an insult, because it shows they care about my spiritual welfare. 
We may disagree about how to attain that spiritual welfare, but it&#8217;s because he was able to say hard truths as he saw them to people like me that he was also able to say hard truths to everybody about Biblical values.
And that meant he was never shy about Biblical values, which is absolutely useful in a time when moral relativism runs rampant. 
Last year, he was on the show, and he said:
<blockquote>I would just say this in a general sense: Read the Bible. Just read the Bible. It has the ring of truth. It defends itself. It&#8217;s like a lion. You don&#8217;t defend it. You don&#8217;t defend a lion. You open the cage and let it out. That&#8217;ll be okay. And the Scripture is like that. &#8230; Even morally, there&#8217;s something in the heart of people that resonates with biblical morality. Obviously, their sinfulness fights it.
But the law of God is written in every human heart. That&#8217;s part of being created in the image of God. And you can fight that law. You can resist that law. You can violate that law. But that law is there. That is part of being created in God&#8217;s image. And I think if your heart is open to the truth, you go to the Word of God. And I&#8217;ve seen this now for all these years I&#8217;ve been in ministry. The ring of Biblical truth is so powerful to a person who honestly reads the Scripture.</blockquote>
I think that message is deeply necessary. In a time when so many have fallen into moral relativism, have fallen down a bunch of rabbit holes looking to fill the God-shaped hole in their heart.
I think that his work is going to be read for generations.
The nice thing about the Jewish view of the afterlife is that in Judaism, if you&#8217;re not Jewish and you fulfill seven basic rules, the Noachide laws, which include items such as no blasphemy, no adultery, and no murder, among other things, you have a spot in heaven.
So it doesn&#8217;t conflict at all with my faith to say that John MacArthur is with God right now. That is something he always longed for.
His uncompromising fealty to Biblical values as he saw them meant that he was also able to walk into political frays without fear.
Way back when, he shellacked a young San Francisco mayor named Gavin Newsom regarding same-sex marriage <a href="https://x.com/JCRyle/status/1879524136218992685">on CNN</a>. Gavin Newsom was playing at being a pastor, saying loftily, “I&#8217;m a practicing Catholic. I got married in the church two-plus years. I don&#8217;t see what we&#8217;re doing in terms of advancing the bond of love and monogamy and extending that to families, families of same sex, in any way, shape or form takes away anything from the church or the sanctity of the union that my wife and I have.”
MacArthur replied. “I would just like to ask the mayor: As a practical, practicing Catholic, do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?”
“Yeah,” Newsom answered. “Look, pastor, I&#8217;m not going to get in a theological debate with you.”
“It&#8217;s not a theological debate,” MacArthur said. “That&#8217;s just a straight question. Do you believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God?”
“Yeah, I, I, with respect, I guess I do,” Newsom answered.
“The Bible says when God created man, he said, ‘One man, one woman, cleave together for life.’ That&#8217;s a family,” MacArthur said bluntly.
MacArthur had that kind of clarity.
(You could see Gavin Newsom smirking, blustering, “I&#8217;m a practicing Catholic and I&#8217;ve been married for two years,” to lead off that particular clip. He was at that point married to Kimberly Guilfoyle, whom he would later cheat on.)
When you have a moral grounding in Biblical values, which John MacArthur did, it gives you the courage to walk in like a lion.
That is something John MacArthur did his entire life.

<script async src="https://www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>

A Tribute To John MacArthur, A Lion Who Was My Friend

There’s an amazing <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/13/us/politics/biden-pardon-autopen-trump.html">story</a> out of The New York Times, where the headline absolutely does not match the content of the story (as per usual arrangement).
The headline stated, “Biden Says He Made the Clemency Decisions That Were Recorded With Autopen.”
Cool. So everything was fine; Biden said that he was going to give clemency or pardons to people. And then he simply said to his people, “Use the auto pen to sign it. I&#8217;m busy today.”
But that is not what the story actually says. It says something quite different.
According to The New York Times:
<blockquote>The full picture of what Mr. Biden did on pardon and clemency decisions, and how much he directed those decisions and the actions of his staff, including the use of the autopen, may come down to tens of thousands of Biden White House emails that the National Archives has turned over as part of the investigation by the Trump White House and the Justice Department. Those emails contain keywords like “clemency,” “pardon” and “commutation” from November 2024 through Jan. 20, 2025, according to people familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue.
The Times has reviewed several dozen of those emails, which discussed each of the major grants of clemency that were recorded by an autopen near the end of Mr. Biden’s term. But The Times has not seen the full extent of the emails, so it is impossible to capture the totality of information they contain or what else they might show about Mr. Biden’s involvement in the pardon and clemency decisions.
But those that were reviewed by The Times show that the Biden White House had a process to establish that Mr. Biden had orally made decisions in meetings before the staff secretary, Stefanie Feldman, who managed use of the autopen, would have clemency records put through the signing device. </blockquote>
The real story was buried in Paragraph 16 and what followed:
<blockquote>At the end of his term, Mr. Biden reduced the sentences of nearly 4,000 federal convicts and pre-emptively pardoned politically prominent people he considered potential targets of Mr. Trump for criminal investigations.
Mr. Biden said in Thursday’s interview that he had his staff use an autopen for the warrants because he had granted clemency to so many people; the autopen was used, in all, on 25 pardon and clemency warrants from last December to January. Some of the individual warrants included large batches of names because they all fell into the same broad policy category, like reducing the sentences of nonviolent drug offenders who met standards Mr. Biden established.
On Oct. 30, 2024, the emails reviewed by The Times show, Mr. Biden’s White House counsel, Ed Siskel, notified senior staff to expect a flood of lobbying for clemency grants at the administration’s end and laid out a process for an orderly review.
The final step, he wrote: “The president makes the final decision on the final pardon and/or commutation slate.”
Over the next three months, Mr. Biden made four major sets of clemency actions that were recorded with an autopen. &#8230; Mr. Biden did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons that applied to large numbers of people, he and aides confirmed.
Rather, after extensive discussion of different possible criteria, he signed off on the standards he wanted to be used to determine which convicts would qualify for a reduction in sentence. Even after Mr. Biden made that decision, one former aide said, the Bureau of Prisons kept providing additional information about specific inmates, resulting in small changes to the list. Rather than ask Mr. Biden to keep signing revised versions, his staff waited and then ran the final version through the autopen, which they saw as a routine procedure, the aide said.</blockquote>
What’s amazing is that his aide admitted the quiet part out loud; Biden said, “Here&#8217;s a broad category of people such as nonviolent drug offenders. Go do something about it.” His people scurried around and came up with a list, which kept changing. Instead of informing the President of the United States who was on the list and what their specific crimes were, they just ran it through the auto pen based on a giant category.
That&#8217;s crazy. When you give commutations of sentences, they are for individuals. If you want to pardon everybody in a broad clemency category, as, for example, Jimmy Carter did with draft dodgers, then you have to do that as a broad category. Everybody who dodged the Vietnam War draft was pardoned, or their sentences would be commuted.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2237-the-ben-shapiro-show?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=The+Ben+Shapiro+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
But that&#8217;s not what Biden did. He didn&#8217;t pardon every single nonviolent drug offender; he pardoned specific drug offenders.
For several years, we did not have a President of the United States; someone else was governing the country, either Dr. Jill Biden, the greatest doctor in all the land, or Hunter Biden, the coke fiend who committed a felony gun crime, or Biden’s advisers like Jake Sullivan.
The fact that this has somehow slipped down the list to somewhere around number ten on the list of scandals that Americans care about is crazy. This should be not only the number one scandal in the country right now, it should be one of the top scandals of all time.
This is far worse than Watergate, which revolved around whether the president had authorized a break-in at the Democratic National Headquarters, an action that came in the aftermath of similar activity LBJ committed in his election against Barry Goldwater.
In this case, you&#8217;re talking about whether the President of the United States’ health condition was covered up by everyone around him, everyone in his cabinet, everybody in the media, who all knew about it.
And we should not allow it to be buried by the media henchmen for the Democratic Party.

<script async src="https://www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>

Don’t Let The Media Bury The Biggest Conspiracy And Scandal Of Our Time

We&#8217;ve reached the point now where the entire leftist program is performative outrage.
Today&#8217;s example is the raid by ICE at a large marijuana farm in Southern California.
According to the New York Times: “Federal agents raided a large cannabis farm in Southern California on Thursday, clashing with protesters and arresting multiple people.”
That sounds like these are just normal people. “Yeah, sure, they&#8217;re illegal immigrants, but they&#8217;re picking the marijuana that America needs.”
But marijuana is damaging our country. If you don&#8217;t believe me, visit LA, visit Denver.
This pot farm was allegedly using illegal underage labor. It&#8217;s hard to think of a place more deserving of a federal law enforcement raid than a pot farm that is engaging in illegal underage labor.
The Left freaked out. Protesters showed up because they heard that ICE was showing up. At least one person showed up with a gun and fired at an ICE agent.
That person is no longer a “protester.” He’s now an attempted murderer.
But a video that went viral on social media was not the video of the so-called protester shooting a gun or the idiots who were attempting to stop an ICE vehicle using flagpoles.
It was children running from tear gas, which ICE used to disperse the crowds.
But when they say children were running away, they should point out that some of the children who were running away were presumably brought there as protesters, because if they were there as child labor, the parents should be in jail.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2236-democrats-defend-illegal-immigrant-child-labor-on-pot-farm?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=The+Ben+Shapiro+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
It&#8217;s a violation of federal and state law to use your small children as child labor at a cannabis farm, we should point out.
But this caused Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, who desperately wants to run for President of the United States, to tweet, “Kids running from tear gas crying on the phone because their mother was just taken from the fields. Trump calls me ‘Newscum’ — but he&#8217;s the real scum.”
Amazing performative outrage.
What are the children doing there in the first place? That should be the real question.
Why have leftists incentivized parents to bring small children to protest immigration raids at a cannabis farm employing underage labor? That&#8217;s question number one. Question number two: Is Newsom suggesting that kids are crying because mom is being taken away? The only person on tape I could see who was crying about this appeared to be a young man whose mom was taken away.
If you&#8217;re a legal immigrant, the administration is not going to arrest you. You have to violate the law in some way that calls for your deportation in order for them to pursue the arrest.
President Trump has mentioned the idea of providing some sort of temporary shield for illegal immigrant farmworkers and hospitality workers, or people working in hotels. He has insisted there will be no amnesty, but also suggested that some workers might be allowed to stay if their employers take responsibility for them.
The policy that the media claim Trump is pursuing is not the policy that he is pursuing.
But because the media are lying about the actual policy and because there are people on social media who are able to blow those lies up into full-fledged stories, you end up with violence against ICE agents, people showing up en masse to stop what are clearly legitimate law enforcement raids.
The performative outrage is the entire gambit for the Left.
It&#8217;s all performative outrage.

<script async src="https://www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>

The Performative Outrage Of The Left

Opinion

Donald Trump

James Mattis

North Korea

America is in the midst of an epoch-making
transformation. Can we find our way to
a new birth of freedom?

Hour 1

The Andrew Klavan Show

Ep. 1239 - The Battle for MAGA

The constant fear-mongering around pregnancy is seriously out of hand at this point. Today, we’re going to dismantle it.

The Comments Section with Reagan Conrad

The Lie Women Teach Other Women

The Lie Women Teach Other Women [Member Exclusive]

Isaiah Hole joins the show for an in-depth and early preview of Michigan football going into the 2025 season. Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

Menu

— Opinion —

NO BLUFF: ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis Says North Korea Must Back Down, Or Face ‘The End Of Its Regime And The Destruction Of Its People’

Create a free account to join the conversation!