One of the major doubts following President Trump leading into 2018 is his plan for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program he suspended on the grounds that President Obama&#8217;s executive order on that matter was unconstitutional. Trump implied at the time that if Congress didn&#8217;t act by March, he might put DACA back in place, preventing Immigrations and Customs Enforcement from deporting the so-called DREAMers. And earlier this year, it seemed that Democrats had gotten precisely what they wanted: a clean DACA bill, approved by the president, without any funding for the famous Trump Wall.
Now Trump has signaled that he wants his priorities:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration &amp; ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc. We must protect our Country at all cost!
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946731576687235072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 29, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
The question, therefore, will be whether Trump is willing to play chicken with the public relations on the DREAMers. Let&#8217;s say we reach March and the Democrats are unwilling to play ball &#8212; they won&#8217;t pass a DACA bill that includes either wall funding or curbs to chain migration. Will Trump veto any bill that doesn&#8217;t include those items? Will Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) be willing to eat the press&#8217; outrage over their failures to bring such a clean DACA bill to the floor, despite what would surely be majority support?
Democrats are surely going to put Republicans to that test. Their own base refuses compromise with Trump, and any funding for the border wall will be seen as a significant victory for Trump leading into the 2018 elections. Which means that Trump had better be ready to undergo a serious political trial here if he doesn&#8217;t want to lose his base on the immigration issue.

<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>

Trump: No Fix For DREAMers Without Wall Funding

CONTINUE READING

The Joe Biden senility and cancer scandal is not going anywhere anytime soon. 
The reason is because it&#8217;s not just a scandal about the Joe Biden family and the people immediately surrounding Joe Biden, it’s a scandal about the Democratic Party writ large, as well as the media. The same Democrat media complex that has kept Democrats relevant and victorious for decades. 
But time after time after time, particularly over the course of the last five years, the Democrat media narratives have fallen completely apart.
Everything they have labeled a conspiracy theory has not only not been a conspiracy theory, it&#8217;s also turned out to be largely true. 
It was the Democrats in the media who claimed that Donald Trump was a cat&#8217;s paw of the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and that he&#8217;d been elected in 2016 based on Russia&#8217;s gaming of the election. That turned into a four-year-long investigation into Donald Trump and everyone surrounding him, surmising that Trump was almost certainly on the Russian payroll. Allegations were made about everything from money changing hands to prostitutes urinating on President Trump. All of this garbage was trotted out by the media for four years as breaking news. 
It turned out, all that was a conspiracy theory on their part. But they contended that anyone suggesting there was a deep state promulgating this lie was engaging in a conspiracy theory. 
Then we moved into the COVID era. The Left said it was a wild conspiracy theory rooted in conjecture to suggest that the virus had originated at a Wuhan lab. And it turned out that the “conspiracy theory” was probably true. 
Then, the Right suggested that conspiratorial actions occurred at the top levels of government, including Dr. Anthony Fauci&#8217;s attempts to shut down dissent with regard to everything from masking to lockdowns.
That wasn&#8217;t a conspiracy theory, either. Anthony Fauci was, in fact, doing those things. He was literally attempting to use his power to quash narratives ranging from the Wuhan lab leak to the so-called Great Barrington Declaration that was put out by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya over at Stanford, among others. If you called out Fauci at the time, you were considered a conspiracy theorist.
If you suggested that the BLM narrative around George Floyd and Derek Chauvin was false, that George Floyd in all likelihood died of some sort of preexisting health condition that was triggered by the fact that he was arrested, that he didn&#8217;t die because Derek Chauvin “choked him out” or anything like that, then that was a conspiracy theory.
If you said, “Hey, wait a second, the statistics do not show that black people are being disproportionately targeted for death by the cops, and that actually, if you remove cops from these particular areas, the crime rates are going to go up,” that was considered a conspiracy theory, too. And then that entire narrative fell apart. 
And, finally, as if that weren&#8217;t enough, everyone could see Joe Biden degrade in real time in front of all of us. But if you pointed out that Joe Biden was obviously going senile, that was also a conspiracy theory.
And then all at once it blew up. And it blew up on one day specifically: the day that Joe Biden had a debate with Donald Trump. It didn&#8217;t just wreck Joe Biden&#8217;s presidency. It didn&#8217;t just wreck Joe Biden&#8217;s legacy. It didn&#8217;t just wreck Joe Biden&#8217;s run for office and Kamala Harris&#8217;s run for office. 
It wrecked the Democratic Party and the media wholesale, because finally, all at once, you could see the mythmaking apparatus exposed, once and for all.
And that is why the Biden senility scandal and now likely the Biden cancer scandal are real scandals that are deeply damaging the Democrats right now. 
Democrats are once again attempting to suggest that you are a conspiracy theorist if you are suspicious of the narrative that Joe Biden just found out five minutes ago that he has stage four prostate cancer that has metastasized to his bones.
Science suggests that this was a long time coming. Prostate cancer is a very slow-developing cancer. It beggars the imagination that the president of the United States, a man who was the vice president of the United States not that long ago, never got a PSA test any time during this period. It just beggars the imagination. It makes no sense at all. 
The president is the most important person on planet Earth, politically speaking. And in terms of just pure power, the notion that he wouldn&#8217;t do one of the most basic tests that is done during a physical for people above the age of 50 is ridiculous. 
Thus, the suspicion about that is not a “conspiracy theory.”
But Democrats are still trying to trot out the idea that this is a conspiracy theory. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic minority leader in the House, said that it is a conspiracy theory to suspect that perhaps people knew more than they were talking about last year concerning Joe Biden&#8217;s condition, or to suspect they avoided giving a PSA test to Joe Biden because they were suspicious he might actually be sick.
Democrats have not earned the trust of the American people to allow them to say things like, “It&#8217;s a conspiracy theory to wonder about that.” The goal, as always, for the Democrats, is not to stop conspiracy theories; it&#8217;s to stop real, relevant questions that point out actual conspiracies.
A conspiracy theory is something where you can&#8217;t connect points A and point B; you just jump immediately to a conclusion. But raising a question about whether or not people knew about Joe Biden&#8217;s health situation when we know for a fact they covered up his senility is not speculation. It is not a conspiracy theory.
None of those people who question our right to question them, whether in the media or the Democratic party, should ever be trusted again in any political context. 
That is the issue. 

<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 Democrat-Media Scandal That Won’t Go Away 

What we are watching right now is the uncovering of one of the most cynical scandals in the history of American politics. It really is amazing.
Let’s begin with this: Obviously, our hearts go out to the former president of the United States, Joe Biden, who has been diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer that has apparently moved from the prostate all the way into his bones. This diagnosis has now been revealed just months after he left office. Everyone has been expressing their good wishes for the Biden family and for Joe Biden personally. 
The statement went out at 3:56 p.m. Sunday afternoon, after Biden was seen by medical professionals earlier last week who found a prostate nodule. He was diagnosed Friday with stage four prostate cancer with metastasis to the bone, an aggressive form of the disease. On the so-called Gleason score, he has a nine on a ten-point scale.
That doesn&#8217;t mean that he is definitely terminal from prostate cancer, because at his age, it can move slowly. But once you have cancer in your bones, the prognosis is not good. 
Everyone’s heart goes out to somebody who is stricken with cancer. But we have to ask the obvious question: Who knew this, and when did they know it? Prostate cancer is not a fast-moving cancer. Prostate cancer usually takes years to develop to the point of metastasis.
So, when was his last physical done? February 2024, and apparently, they did not do a PSA test.
He&#8217;s the president of the United States. He’s 82. You should do as much of a work-up panel as you possibly can. It is true that as people get older, sometimes people don&#8217;t check the PSA because it&#8217;s such a slow-moving cancer that the suggestion is that by the time the cancer actually would kill you, you&#8217;d be dead anyway of old age.
But as people are living to be older, if you&#8217;re in your 80s, there&#8217;s a pretty good shot that they&#8217;re going to do a PSA. 
Metastatic prostate cancer typically develops over several years. High-grade cancers often progress faster, with studies suggesting metastasis can occur within two to five years if untreated. Biden&#8217;s diagnosis followed increasing urinary symptoms and the discovery of a prostate nodule, which underscores the importance of early detection. 
It beggars the imagination that Joe Biden did not have a PSA test. His cancer was diagnosed at stage four. Typically, when you have a stage-four cancer diagnosis and it&#8217;s sudden, it is not a prostate cancer diagnosis. That is typically some other, much faster form of cancer that has developed.
This raises all sorts of questions about when people knew, and if they didn&#8217;t know, whether they deliberately avoided tests that theoretically could have led to a better standard of care for the president of the United States in order to get him through the election.
This all ties into the broader scandal that he&#8217;s obviously in the mid-stages of senility. They knew this during the campaign. There was open talk of him having to use a wheelchair after he was elected. 
This announcement actually raises more questions than answers. If the idea here was that they were going to drop this cancer announcement as a way of distracting from the questions about his senility, this is even more of a scandal. 
Everybody knew in 2020 that Joe Biden was not healthy.  Everyone knew this. And then we were told by the media for years he was not senile. 
They all knew he was senile. Now the question is, did they all know he had cancer? Or if they didn&#8217;t know that he had cancer, how did nobody know that he had cancer? This is not a fast-moving form of cancer. This is the kind of cancer that takes ten years to develop. 
That&#8217;s not just me saying that. “He&#8217;s had this for many years, maybe even a decade growing there, and spreading,” Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the founder of Obamacare, admitted. “I look back at the records, and there&#8217;s no evidence that when he got his health status and the medical records were released, that he had a prostate-specific antigen. Now, it is true that a lot of people recommend not doing a prostate-specific antigen after 70, but President Biden&#8217;s been in public life a very long time. He was vice-president and had a lot of exams under 70. So it&#8217;s a little surprising that they didn&#8217;t do it. And maybe President Biden decided he didn&#8217;t want the test.”
That is crazy. The notion that you would not do a PSA test, which is a very easy test to do, on the sitting president of the United States, who said he had cancer in 2022?
Hmmm.
Here is the bottom line for all of this. All of these questions are perfectly legitimate. And now the entire media are going to mobilize so we cannot ask these questions, saying things like, “A tragedy has occurred. You cannot ask these questions.”
You can absolutely ask these questions. You should ask these questions because we now have a series of questions. Dr. Jill Biden was there the whole time. She knew he was going senile.  She doesn&#8217;t have any excuses. Everyone knew he was going senile. And yet, she continued, like Edith Wilson, to promote his presidential candidacy the entire time.
Two weeks ago, Jill Biden had her husband out on tour on ABC’s The View. He was doddering. He could barely speak a sentence; she was finishing his sentences. She was still trotting him out. What kind of person does that to their ailing husband? Who does that? 
Where&#8217;s the rest of Joe Biden&#8217;s family? Where&#8217;s his beloved Hunter in all of this? Where are his kids? Where? 
Why was there no one around him to say, “No, you can&#8217;t do this. Not just on the basis of his senility, but also on the basis that he apparently has a deadly cancer.”
And one more thing: who the hell was president for the last several years? 
We should change the law with regard to presidential health advisories and notifications, and public disclosure. It is not just a matter of medical privacy. How the president is doing is a matter of national security.
The president — and it doesn’t matter which party — should be required to have a full-panel health test every year. 
And we should know about it. We, the American people, are owed that. 
We should know whether the president has cancer. We should know whether the president has a mental condition. We should know whether the president has high blood pressure.
It shouldn&#8217;t be up to the hand-picked doctor of the president of the United States to cover up his health condition. 
That is a violation of the bargain that the American people have with their elected leaders. 

<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>

Biden Was Senile, Had Cancer, And They Knew

Remember James Comey, the former FBI director, who presented the so-called Steele dossier to President Trump, and then that dossier just happened to leak into public view?
That dossier suggested President Trump wasn&#8217;t just a Russian cat’s paw, it claimed he was actually having affairs with prostitutes in Moscow and doing all sorts of crazy stuff.
Comey presented that to Trump, and then, magically, it just happened to emerge in the press very soon after.
Comey was also the FBI director who let Hillary Clinton off the hook for the mishandling of classified documents — a precedent that would then be used for every subsequent president so they could mishandle classified documents. He deliberately misread a statute to let Hillary Clinton off the hook.
But then, just before the 2016 election, he announced that there would be a further investigation into Hillary Clinton&#8217;s mishandling of classified information, leading Democrats to believe that he threw the election to Donald Trump. 
Needless to say, he was a terrible FBI director, from soup to nuts. Then, in his post-FBI director career, he decided to become a giant weirdo who wandered around forests.
I&#8217;m not kidding. That&#8217;s what he does. 
He is the world&#8217;s worst Instagram influencer. 
James Comey is a person who likes to stand in random places and take contemplative pictures of the things around him and then post them.
So why is James Comey relevant? Because on Thursday, he put up a post on his Instagram, and it was another one of these contemplative posts or would-be contemplative posts.
Except this one got him in a little bit of trouble.
He wrote on Instagram, “Cool shell formation on my beach walk,” accompanied by a photo of shells arranged to read 86 47.
Now, you might be thinking, “What are we watching? Lost? What do these numbers mean? Why are these numbers important?”
And then you realize, “Wait a moment, 47 would be Donald Trump, the 47th president of the United States, and the number 86 could mean a couple of things. Originally, to “86”  someone meant to throw them out of a bar or restaurant or to cancel a password. It&#8217;s sort of like the expression “deep six.”
But there’s another meaning: to kill. To kill the president. Not to get rid of the president, but to kill him.
The second meaning is how the Secret Service interpreted it. They said you are not allowed to threaten the president in public media. That is a violation of the U.S code.
The entire White House came down on Comey. 
Taylor Rutledge the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, <a href="https://x.com/Taylor47/status/1923128430415184173">wrote</a> on X, “While President Trump is currently on an international trip to the Middle East, the former FBI Director puts out what can clearly be interpreted as ‘a hit’ on the sitting President of the United States—a message etched in the sand.  This is deeply concerning to all of us and is being taken seriously.”
Donald Trump Jr. signed in to <a href="https://x.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1923118680658862260">say</a>, “Just James Comey casually calling for my dad to be murdered.” 
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ripped into Comey, <a href="https://x.com/Sec_Noem/status/1923141313005785365">saying</a>, “Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of President Trump. 
DHS and Secret Service are investigating this threat and will respond appropriately.” Trump’s top advisor, Stephen Miller, <a href="https://x.com/StephenM/status/1923265414294880519">added</a>, “As the former FBI director, and key leader of the deep state, Comey’s call for assassination — while the president is abroad no less — is a chilling escalation of the war against our democracy by a faction committed to its destruction.” 
Kash Patel, the head of the FBI, didn&#8217;t want to get lost in the shuffle, so he put out a <a href="https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/1923151715777356062">statement</a> saying, “We are aware of the recent social media post by former FBI Director James Comey, directed at President Trump. We are in communication with the Secret Service and Director Curran. Primary jurisdiction is with SS on these matters and we, the FBI, will provide all necessary support.”
President Trump commented, “He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant. If you&#8217;re the FBI director and you don&#8217;t know what that meant, that meant ‘assassination.’ And it says it loud and clear. Now, he wasn&#8217;t very competent, but he was competent enough to know what that meant. And he did it for a reason. And he was hit so hard because people like me, and they like what&#8217;s happening with our country. Our country&#8217;s become respected again. &#8230; And he&#8217;s calling for the assassination of the president. “
“I don&#8217;t want to take a position on it, because that&#8217;s going to be up to Pam (Bondi) and all of the great people,” Trump continued. “But I will say this: I think it&#8217;s a terrible thing. And when you add his history to that, if he had a clean history — he doesn&#8217;t, he&#8217;s a dirty cop, he&#8217;s a dirty cop — and if he had a clean history, I could understand if there was a leniency, but I&#8217;m going to let them make that decision.”
When President Trump says “dirty cop,” what he means is that James Comey was presiding over the FBI when the Hillary Clinton Fusion GPS scam document that initiated the entire Russiagate investigation was basically laundered by the Hillary Clinton campaign via the intelligence apparatus to the FBI.
He means all of Russiagate can basically be laid at the feet of James Comey. 
Comey apologized, saying, ‘I posted earlier a picture of some shows I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message. I didn&#8217;t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me, but I oppose violence of any kind, so I took the post down.”
He&#8217;s claiming ignorance on all this.
A few things right off the bat. First of all, President Trump was nearly assassinated twice last year, so we should take very seriously threats of violence against the president of the United States. He nearly had his head blown off on national TV. And then he was nearly assassinated again by a person who was sitting outside of his golf course in Florida and was waiting for him to get to a particular hole so he could kill him. And then, of course, we know that the Iranians were also attempting to assassinate President Trump. 
It&#8217;s not as though there is a shortage of threats on the president&#8217;s life. We also know that members of the radical Left despise President Trump, and there would be few tears shed by many of those people if, God forbid, something were to happen to President Trump.
So in that sort of climate, what Comey says there is indeed pretty bad. Is it prosecutable? Did Comey actually mean it?
This takes us to the edge of the stupidity versus malice conversation. As I&#8217;ve said very frequently, I generally like to attribute people&#8217;s motivations when they do something wrong to stupidity rather than malice unless there is solid counter-evidence.
At the very least, what Comey did was incredibly stupid. And James Comey is an incredibly stupid guy. Just recall his tweets standing on a road in the middle of Iowa and standing in a forest.
It isn&#8217;t all that hard for me to believe he thought 86 47 meant to get rid of Trump as opposed to killing President Trump. 
On the other hand, could he be malicious? Could he hate President Trump enough that he would openly call for that? 
You would have to assume at least a level of stupidity where the former FBI director does not know enough about the law to understand that if you openly threaten the president of the United States on social media, the Secret Service is going to come knocking at your door. That would be the truest level of stupidity and malice: to want to kill Trump, but be stupid enough to post it online knowing that he&#8217;s probably going to go to jail for it.
That would be the top level of both stupidity and malice. If he were at the top level of malice, then presumably he wouldn&#8217;t just post something about it. If he were at the top level of stupidity, he would post something about it and then walk it back. 
The bottom line is this with regard to James Comey: Is the Justice Department going to take this very far?
It is certainly true that many of the people who are currently going after James Comey are people who also feel specifically targeted by folks like James Comey, including the current FBI director, Kash Patel.
So it will be fascinating to see exactly how this plays out. 

<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>

Former FBI Director Headed To Jail For Threatening Trump?

President Trump&#8217;s economic success rests on the passage of his one “big, beautiful bill.”
We&#8217;ve been talking about this for months, and the timeline on the “big beautiful bill” is still somewhat in doubt, because it has to pass through the House, a version has to pass through the Senate, and then there&#8217;s going to be reconciliation between the House bill and the Senate bill.
Whatever you see in the House bill might not end up in the final bill. Massive controversy is already breaking out in the House over where the cuts in spending are going to come from. Many House Republicans are calling for cuts to make up for the loss in revenue to the federal government that occurs when taxes are not increased.
As you know, conservatives have been discussing the Laffer Curve for 50 years. Economist Art Laffer pointed out that if you&#8217;re looking for the proper rate of taxation, it can&#8217;t be zero because then the government has no money to spend. But it also can&#8217;t be 100 because then the government has no money to spare; no one will actually go out and do business if they are going to have all of their money removed by the federal government. 
The Laffer Curve suggests there is a point at which, if you tax people more, then you will actually end up with declining government revenues as a result, because people will simply work less to avoid the top tax bracket, or something similar.
There&#8217;s certainly truth to that, although it&#8217;s unclear where exactly the inflection point is with regard to the Laffer Curve. But it has been long-standing conservative economic dogma that if you increase taxes, you will end up quashing economic growth because you&#8217;re taking money away from the more efficient private sector and sticking it in the public sector, where it gets doled out by a bunch of politicians to their favorite pet projects.
In addition, how you look at government revenue differs between conservatives and people on the Left. People on the Left believe that the government basically owns your money and then allows you to keep some of it. Conservatives believe you own your money, but you have to give some of it to the government to provide public services. 
When it comes to discussing what government revenue looks like, the real discussion that should be had — and the one no one will ever have —  is what the proper role of government in our lives actually is. Why is it that our government is spending $6-7 trillion a year at the federal level? This was not the case when the United States was founded. The original expenditures by the federal government at the beginning were absolutely minimal. It stayed that way except for times of war, such as the Civil War, all the way up through the end of World War I.
Then, government spending began to grow slowly. Later, with FDR, it exploded all out of proportion. Now we have roughly $7 trillion being spent every single year.
That&#8217;s what&#8217;s racking up the national debt. Thus, there are a couple of different takes on what should be done. A traditional classical conservative might say, we need to cut massive reams of government spending by pushing it all back down to the states. If the states wish to do things like Medicare and Medicaid, then the states can do that, but it shouldn&#8217;t be up to a taxpayer from Montana to pay for the health care of a guy from California because he&#8217;s 70 years old. 
There’s the Republican Party position, which is “let&#8217;s cut around the edges,” and the Democratic Party position, which is “let&#8217;s never cut anything ever for the rest of time.”
The latter two positions are the ones the American people have opted for. 
That’s what a lot of the debate is concerning this current GOP tax bill.
Inside the Republican caucus, there are a bunch of Republicans who believe that cutting spending in any way, shape, or form is detrimental to Republican electoral chances. The American people don&#8217;t want it. Polling basically says there&#8217;s truth to that, as the American people will say they don&#8217;t want the government to be so big and provide so many services, but when you ask them which services they would like to cut, they start to scratch their head and really have no idea what the answer could be to that question. 
Then there are traditional Republicans who say, “Listen, if we&#8217;re ever going to get to anything more like a big restructuring of government, you have to start somewhere or we are going to plunge off the debt cliff.”
So all of this is manifesting in the debate over the current “big, beautiful bill” in the Republican House. There&#8217;s no question that spending is going to continue to increase. The only question is whether the rate of the increase is going to be slightly slower or slightly faster.
There is a debate inside the Republican Party between people who sort of side with Democrats, saying, “We&#8217;ll never cut any welfare spending ever, ever, forever because the American people don&#8217;t like it,” and people who say, “We need to restructure some of this, we&#8217;re going to hit the fiscal cliff sooner than humanly possible.” Then there’s the third group that says the federal government has no role in virtually any of this.
In the end, President Trump is going to put his boot down and force a bunch of reluctant Republicans to support whatever the “big, beautiful bill” is. 
But then you go to the Senate, where the Republican majority is not particularly large. You could easily see some of the “moderate” Republican senators, like Lisa Murkowski in Alaska or Susan Collins in Maine, drop off. If the bill is not conservative enough, you could see people from the opposite side drop off.
The markets right now have a tax cut already priced in. They believe it&#8217;s going to happen. If this tax cut does not happen, if somehow this whole thing falls apart, it’s a disaster for the Trump administration.
If Trump pulls this off, it’s a major act of political magic by his administration, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.
By the way, it is pretty amazing that the United States is so addicted to spending that even talking about work requirements for welfare is incredibly controversial. That is the mark of a country that has been high on its own supply for far too long. We are an unserious country if we refuse to come to a reckoning with the reality that is our $37 trillion national debt. 
In the meantime, there is magic to be done.

<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>

Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill: There’s Magic To Be Done.

Tuesday was a huge day for President Trump in Saudi Arabia.
President Trump has a warm relationship with Saudi Arabia in a way that Joe Biden did not. If you recall, Joe Biden really tried to alienate the Saudis. He came into office ripping on Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), ripping on the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, putting pressure on Saudi Arabia not to fight the Houthis in Yemen, and putting pressure on Saudi Arabia concerning democracy and human rights while ignoring American interests in the Middle East and trying to be buddy-buddy with Iran. 
Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who had the same foreign policy vision, made a bunch of big mistakes in the Middle East, particularly with nations like Saudi Arabia.
First, they kept saying words such as “democracy” and “human rights,&#8221; and those would trump America’s interests. Joe Biden went out of his way during the 2020 campaign to talk about the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, the Muslim Brotherhood media member who was murdered by the Saudi regime in a Turkish embassy. He made this a major focus of his foreign policy.
But the reality is that the Middle East is a place filled with terrible regimes. The only truly democratic regime in the entire Middle East is Israel. Everywhere else, there’s a tyrannical dictatorship. The question is whether those tyrannical dictatorships are going to move in the direction of the West toward a gradual accommodation with modernity, or whether those tyrannical regimes are going to oppose the United States wholesale.
Again, Obama and Biden kept pretending that words like “democracy” and “human rights” trumped American interests. That&#8217;s how we got the Obama-era idea of an Arab Spring, that you needed “democracy in the Middle East,” which was going to fix everything, but it resulted in the Muslim Brotherhood initially gaining power in Egypt and the rise of terror groups all over the region, as well as the complete collapse of Libya. 
It turns out the Arab Spring was actually an Arab Winter. 
And then powerful people took over in these places and had to quash all the Muslim Brotherhood-led rebellions in a wide variety of these countries. Less democracy and fewer human rights were the result of the Obama/Biden matrix. The second thing that Obama and Biden did was create daylight with our actual allies in the Middle East in favor of our enemies, like Iran. Obama and Biden made numerous overtures to Iran while pushing our actual allies in the region off into the corner. Thirdly, the Obama/Biden matrix took at face value the idea that for any progress on anything to happen in the Middle East, Israel had to make all sorts of concessions to the Palestinians.
But President Trump, in his first term, took a different view. He said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was unsolvable, that the Palestinians didn&#8217;t want peace with the Israelis. He felt there could be commerce and cooperation between Israel and its neighbors outside of that particular issue. 
That is still something that President Trump deeply believes.
We should recognize that democracy in the West took a couple of thousand years to take root in places like Great Britain, which we consider the great Western democracy. The powers of Parliament were not fully effectuated until, at the very least, the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Before that, there were hundreds of years of monarchy and oligarchy in Great Britain. 
The same is going to hold true in the Middle East, particularly because the Judeo-Christian West and the Biblical values upon which it relies have some strains of democracy. There&#8217;s nothing in the Koran that tends toward democracy. Thus, the idea of democracy will be a problem in many Islamic nations.
What does that mean in terms of governance? It means that if you wish to do business with any of these places, if you wish to actually move these countries toward some level of modernization, democracy is not going to be the number one answer. If there were democracies overnight in Jordan, or the UAE, or Saudi Arabia, it’s likely that terrorist states could emerge.
What President Trump also understands is that isolationism is not a real perspective in the Middle East.  There were a lot of people on the isolationist Right who championed what President Trump said in Saudi Arabia. 
But let’s be clear: President Trump is not an isolationist. He&#8217;s never been an isolationist. 
I&#8217;ll tell you what isolationists don&#8217;t do: sell $150 billion worth of military weaponry to the Saudis. They don’t fly to Saudi Arabia and Qatar to cut billions of dollars’ worth of business deals. You know what else isolationists don&#8217;t do? Try to broker accords between Syria and the Saudis and Qatar and the Turks, and Israel.
None of that is isolationism. President Trump is not an isolationist, but he is also not a Wilsonian interventionist, what some people mistakenly refer to as a neocon. That&#8217;s a misnomer because the neocons were a specific group of people, liberals who were mugged by reality and then became very hawkish on foreign policy in the 1960s and 70s and turned against the welfare state. 
Today, there are no neocons, and the number of Wilsonian interventionists who believe in “nation building” in Iraq or Afghanistan is singularly hard to find.
Trump is not an isolationist and not a Wilsonian interventionist.
He is a realist.
A realist is someone who understands that different nations have different interests, they have different cultures, and there are different nations with different cultures that have to be negotiated with on their own level. 
He stated, “In recent years, far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it&#8217;s our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use U.S. policy to dispense justice for their sins. I believe it is God&#8217;s job to sit in judgment, my job to defend America and to promote the fundamental interests of stability, prosperity, and peace.”
“I will never hesitate to wield American power if it&#8217;s necessary to defend the United States, or to help defend our allies,” he also said. “If you threaten America or our partners, however, then you&#8217;ll be faced with overwhelming strength and devastating force. We have things that you don&#8217;t even know about.”
President Trump is a realist. He wants to be involved where it is in the interests of the United States to be involved. He doesn&#8217;t want to dictate to the Saudis; he was there to get deals done. His biggest contribution is the idea that commerce trumps ideology.
For that to happen, there have to be strings attached. And here is where things get a little bit complicated: Trump gave them an enormous number of benefits. The Saudis are spending an enormous amount of money in the United States or, at least, pledging to do so. 
The question is whether enough strings are attached because just giving the Saudis (or the Syrians) benefits from the United States without strings attached in the hope that they will, through their own goodwill, do something nice and integrate further into the world system, seems to be a mistake. 
You have to make this stuff conditional on them doing something that we want them to do.
Trump said that he wants the Abraham Accords to happen. I wish that some of the stuff that he&#8217;s giving to the Saudis had been tied to the Abraham Accords, because if he&#8217;s going to broaden out his Nobel Peace Prize-worthy accomplishments in term one, using leverage is a better plan than simply giving people things and then hoping on the back end they&#8217;ll do the right thing. 
Trump also said Gaza&#8217;s leadership has to go, meaning Hamas has to go. He slammed Iran, saying, “Our task is to unify against a few agents of chaos and terror that are left, and that are holding hostage the dreams of millions and millions of great people. The biggest and most destructive of these forces is the regime in Iran, which has caused unthinkable suffering in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Yemen, and beyond.”
All of that is correct.
The bottom line is that this was a triumphant trip for President Trump. He ended up with the Saudis committing a bunch of money to the United States, as well as a warm relationship with the Saudi government.
What I would love to see from President Trump — and the American administration more generally — is that if we are going to be doing these sorts of things with Saudi Arabia, or relieving sanctions on Syria, or making deals in the Middle East, make the strings attached.
That&#8217;s what President Trump did in his first term.
And it worked.

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

Trump’s Saudi Triumph

Every day, a new, stupid controversy is pushed by the Left.
Now, it’s the fact that the Trump administration has decided to grant some white South Africans refugee status.
Why? Because the government in South Africa discriminates against white South Africans.
The New York Times<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/us/politics/white-south-africans-refugees.html"> reported</a>:
Dozens of white South Africans arrived in the United States on Monday on a chartered jet after being granted refugee status by the Trump administration, which has made it virtually impossible for any other refugees to seek safe haven in America.
This, of course, is the problem that the Left and the media are having: Why do these refugees get in when, say, Afghan refugees are not getting in? 
The Times continues:
The arrival represents a drastic reversal in the United States’ refugee policies, which have long focused on helping people fleeing war, famine and genocide. The South Africans say they have been discriminated against, denied job opportunities and have been subject to violence because of their race — though the specifics of their cases are unclear.
President Trump, referring to a spate of murders of farmers in South Africa, said farmers are being killed. People who own land in South Africa are disproportionately white compared to the surrounding population, which means that many of the farmers who are being killed are white. 
Trump said, “Farmers are being killed. They happen to be white, but whether they&#8217;re white or black makes no difference to me. But white farmers are being brutally killed and their land is being confiscated in South Africa.&#8221;
To understand why the United States is bringing Afrikaners to the United States, we actually have to know a little bit of the history. So Afrikaners, also known as Boers, have been in South Africa since 1652. That&#8217;s when the Dutch East India Company established a station at the Cape of Good Hope. For legitimately 350 years, there have been white people in South Africa. Originally, the Afrikaners were Dutch. Eventually, they were joined by both German and French citizens. 
The British Empire came in the early 19th century to establish its own colonies in South Africa. Eventually this led to conflict. The British expanded their reach. The Boers made their way inland because they didn&#8217;t actually want to be under the edicts of the British Empire. Eventually, there were some conflicts. The biggest conflict was the Second Boer War. That was because the Afrikaners were in an area called the Transvaal, a region very heavy with gold.
The finding of gold in the Transvaal essentially incentivized the British Empire to try and expand its holdings in South Africa, leading to the Second Boer War that eventually ended with the British Empire victorious. 
In 1948, the National Party came to power and adopted a formal regime of apartheid. By 1950, the races were being categorized by law with special privileges for whites as opposed to blacks. Black people had no say in the government. In 1960, the so-called Sharpeville Massacre ended with the death of 69 anti-apartheid protesters. Nelson Mandela declared the end of nonviolent resistance and began engaging in violent activities directed against the government. He was arrested in 1962, sentenced to life imprisonment, and would end up spending nearly three decades in prison. 
Over time, international pressure led to the eventual end of apartheid, with the ban on the African National Congress, which was Mandela&#8217;s party, ending in 1990. Mandela was freed from prison that same year. He was eventually inaugurated as President of South Africa.
According to the media, that&#8217;s where the story basically ends, because we&#8217;re not supposed to talk about anything that happened after the end of apartheid. Everything was just hunky-dory after that.
Two things can be true at once: 1) apartheid was an evil system, but 2) lots of bad things have happened after apartheid. 
One of the dumb ways to cover politics is to suggest that because a bad thing is happening in one direction, no bad things have ever happened in the other direction, or will ever happen in the other direction.
Since the end of apartheid, there has been a radical upsurge in the amount of racial discrimination against whites. Today, black Africans represent about 81.4% of the population of South Africa. Colored, which is a reference in South Africa to people of mixed race ethnicity, represent 8.2%; whites represent 7.3%. That is a massive change since 1904, when 67.3% of the population was Black African, but fully a fifth, 21.6%, was white.
By 1996, those percentages had shifted dramatically. Suddenly, 77% of the South African population was Black African, as opposed to 11% white. And today, as the white population has dropped dramatically, the government has increasingly started to pass laws that are directed against whites in South Africa.
This year, the South African president, Cyril Ramaphosa, signed a bill into law allowing land seizures by the state without compensation.
The great fear in South Africa is that it will do the same thing that Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe. Mugabe expropriated all land from whites and then targeted them. Ramaphosa can simply say, “It&#8217;s in the public interest to rejigger land ownership in South Africa. We are now taking all the land of white people in South Africa in response to South African apartheid.”
The hunky dory version of South African history says that everybody got together and gave a big group hug after the end of apartheid, but that is actually not what happened. 
The ruling African National Congress, the party of Nelson Mandela, has been in charge of the country since 1994. In 2017, Jacob Zuma, the corrupt former president of the country from 2009 to 2018, adopted ANC policy that included, “fundamental change in the structures, systems, institutions and patterns of ownership and control of the economy in favor of all South Africans, especially the poor.” That was coded language for “we&#8217;re going to completely redo all the structures on a racialized basis.” The ANC is a deeply corrupt party and is closely tied to the Chinese Communist Party, from which it receives money. They&#8217;re also closely tied to Vladimir Putin&#8217;s Russia as well as Iran.
Julius Malema, the head of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), which is a radical party in South Africa, has led an enormous crowd in a stadium to chant, “Kill the Boer!” which is the language of genocide. A bunch of communists shouted to kill the Boer. Never in the history of humanity have we ever seen communists attempt to exterminate an entire class of people, except for pretty much every communist regime everywhere. 
You might see why South Africans who are white feel under threat.
Why is it a big deal that Afrikaners are being granted refugee status to come to the United States? Because the Left is utterly puzzled at the idea that white people can ever be refugees. They&#8217;re absolutely puzzled by the idea that has been expressed by State Department deputy Chris Landale that Afrikaners might have an easier time assimilating in the United States than, say, Afghan refugees.
Why is it that they can assimilate easily into our country? It isn&#8217;t about the fact that they are white. They all speak English. They are, by and large, capitalists. They agree with fundamental constitutional rights that are being violated in South Africa. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin, and everything to do with the ideas that they hold, and the cultural hallmarks that they bear in common with the United States. 
That may not hold true for Afghan refugees, where you literally have no idea what their ideas are. They don&#8217;t speak English. There are a lot of things culturally that they do not have in common with Americans, up to and including a belief in constitutional rights. Are we going to just pretend that all potential immigrants to the United States have an equivalent level of assimilative capability? That&#8217;s obviously untrue.
Since the 1960s, there has been an idea promulgated that America bears some sort of bizarre blood guilt for its success, and, therefore, bears an obligation to import people from all over the world, from these countries that actually do not share a cultural history with the Anglo-American sphere.
Somehow America owes that to the rest of the world, because America&#8217;s only successful through some form of exploitation, according to that view, which also holds that there needs to be reparative justice in South Africa because whites used to harm blacks. 
America somehow owes it to the rest of the world to let anybody in. And if you say that that&#8217;s not true, then you&#8217;re undermining the Left&#8217;s perception of Americanism.

<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 Left Freaks Out As Trump Accepts White Refugees

Opinion

Donald Trump

Illegal Immigration

Parenting isn’t a theory—it’s a daily test of character. In this first episode, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson meets with real parents navigating the joys and struggles of raising children. From discipline and play to guilt, sacrifice, and step-parenting, Peterson offers timeless insights rooted in clinical psychology and lived experience. If you’re a parent—or planning to be—this is where your journey begins.

Hour 1

Parenting

Parental Roles

Joe Biden was recently diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has spread to his bones. It is heartbreaking news, and there are currently discussions questioning how long he has been ill and whether he was suffering while still serving as president.


The Comments Section with Reagan Conrad

Proof the Mainstream Media Lied to You

Proof the Mainstream Media Lied to You [Member Exclusive]

We take an early look and preview of the Texas vs. Ohio State game in Week 1 for the 2025 season. Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

Crain & Company

Ohio State vs. Texas Early Look & Preview

We take an early look and preview of the Texas vs. Ohio State game in Week 1 for the 2025 season. Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

Thanks for being a DailyWire+ member. This show is ad-free.

Menu

— Opinion —

Trump: No Fix For DREAMers Without Wall Funding

Create a free account to join the conversation!