Conservatives are used to being called names: racist, sexist, transphobic, and the list goes on. Typically, these charges are rooted in policy differences: If you oppose DEI and racial quotas, the Left will call you racist. If you oppose men competing in women’s sports, you’re a transphobe. These labels are weapons used to advance political narratives, and typically deserve the same attention as an unhinged, all-caps comment in your X feed. They should be ignored.
Yet when it comes to sexism, conservatives should consider how their messaging makes the sexist charge stick with women who otherwise might join our movement. Conservative leaders aren’t misogynists, but particularly when speaking to and about women, they are sometimes tone deaf.
Take the issue of marriage and family life. For good reason, conservatives frequently trumpet evidence showing the benefits of marriage and family formation. Children raised by married parents enjoy a long list of benefits. Married women and men are less likely to live in poverty, have better health outcomes, and report higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction than their single counterparts. This is important information for the public to have.
Yet efforts to raise awareness about the benefits of marriage and family formation frequently come across as denigrating childless or unmarried women. Conservatives may think they are countering nihilistic TikTok influencers and gender studies professors who seem driven to convince impressionable young women that marriage and children are the enemies of good mental health, while an OnlyFans career offers true fulfillment. Yet the persuadable women most likely to hear conservatives’ counter messages are women who already recognize the benefits of marriage and children, but who find themselves outside those institutions nonetheless.
Today, nearly 20% of women over age 45 are childless. According to a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-experiences-of-u-s-adults-who-dont-have-children/">Pew survey</a> of childless adults, nearly 40% admit that they once wanted children. That’s almost certainly an understatement since many childless adults likely don’t want to admit, even to themselves, that they regret missing this irreplaceable part of the human experience.
Additionally, about one-quarter of children are being raised by a single parent. Those single parents don’t need to be told how much easier it would be to have another adult helping to give their kids all the love and support they need. They live it every day.
Touting the benefits of a happy family life can seem not so much instructive as rubbing it in. Done wrong, this messaging risks not only alienating childless and unmarried women, but all of those who love them. When women hear that messaging, they don’t solely think about how it impacts them, but also the people they love and worry about the most: their dear best friend who hasn’t found a husband; their beloved, recently divorced sister juggling kids’ schedules and costs. Married women with children will reject those who they see as dunking on their loved ones.
Conservative leaders should also keep this in mind when addressing work-life issues. Of course, parents should know how vulnerable children are in those first months and years of life, and why investing time in them is so beneficial. Yet, when done wrong, those messages can sound like attacks on working women — many of whom would love to downshift their careers but feel like they can’t afford to do so.
It is certainly true that facts don&#8217;t care about your feelings. Political leaders must make policy decisions grounded in clear-eyed reality. Yet it is also true that feelings are often unmoved by facts. That is why, when communicating about sensitive and deeply personal issues, policy leaders must be careful in how they communicate those realities, because poorly chosen words can do far more damage than good.
Republicans do not want to be seen as a party that only values married mothers or only women as mothers. The party also welcomes single women, widows, lesbians, and divorcees — any woman — so long as she shares the core conservative beliefs that personal responsibility, limited government, and free markets are the foundation of a flourishing country.
Republicans should be succeeding in winning women over. Democrats have spent recent years denigrating the very concept of womanhood — as if being a woman is a costume that you can put on and take off. Conservatives took the lead in defending women as a distinct group worthy of equal opportunity and protection under the law. Women saw this and recognized conservatives as the champions of common sense and core women’s rights.
Conservative policies are fundamentally pro-woman: Women thrive in a safe, secure society with a robust economy offering plentiful opportunities for people to pursue their own visions of happiness. This policy vision needs to be communicated carefully, in a manner that shows that women — all women, not just married mothers — are valued and can find a home in our movement.
* * *
Carrie Lukas is the president of the non-profit Independent Women&#8217;s Forum. Follow her on X at @carrielukas.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TOPSHOT-US-VOTE-POLITICS-EARLY VOTING

When It Comes To Reaching Women, Republicans Aren’t Misogynistic. Just Tone Deaf.

When It Comes To Reaching Women, Republicans Aren't Misogynistic. Just Tone Deaf.

Conservatives

divorce

Family Values

Marriage

Republican Women

Republicans

Women

As a member of Gen Z, I am often told my generation is a lost cause for conservatism — too cynical, too progressive, or just too far gone.
That assumption couldn’t be more wrong. Gen Z isn’t rejecting America; we’re demanding that it work again. And if conservatives are serious about reclaiming the soul of the nation, the path forward runs directly through the issues my generation lives with every day.
Gen Z came of age at the crossroads of stability and uncertainty. 
During President Trump’s first term, we witnessed a strong economy, interest rates that opened the door to homeownership, an end to forever wars, and a return to policies that prioritized the family.
Under President Biden, however, millions of young Americans graduated college and took entry-level jobs that barely covered their student loan payments, even as the cost of everything rose faster than their paychecks. They were told to follow the rules — go to college, take on loans, delay adulthood. Then, when those rules failed them, they were blamed.
What frustrates my peers isn’t tradition or responsibility; it’s a system that feels rigged against them. 
That’s precisely where conservatism, properly articulated, can meet the moment.
<h3>Homeownership</h3>
For Gen Z, homeownership feels less like a milestone and more like a fantasy. Sky-high rents that prevent us from putting money into savings, zoning restrictions that choke supply, and inflation driven by reckless federal spending have priced young people out of opportunity. 
Conservatives should call this what it is: a policy failure. Government rules make it harder to build homes, while bad monetary policy drains savings and pushes the dream of stability further out of reach for young families.
If we believe in ownership, stability, and opportunity, then we should lead on reforms that make it easier — not harder — for young Americans to buy homes and build wealth.
<h3>Student Debt</h3>
Then there’s student debt. Gen Z didn’t invent the student loan crisis; we inherited it.
Many borrowers were reckless, and they should repay what they owe. But recklessness was enabled by a federal loan system that treated teenagers as capable of signing six-figure contracts while shielding universities from the consequences of failure.
Subsidies have fueled tuition inflation and reduced institutional accountability, leaving students to bear the full cost of bad decisions — both theirs and the systems.
Conservatives should reject blanket loan “forgiveness” that shifts the burden to taxpayers, but we must also offer real solutions: ending the federal government’s role as a blank-check lender so private institutions once again have incentives to lend responsibly, expanding alternatives like apprenticeships and credentialing, and breaking the cartel between the federal government and higher education. Responsibility cuts both ways—and universities should finally be forced to bear some.
<h3>Building A Family </h3>
Most surprising to pundits — but obvious to anyone paying attention — is Gen Z’s renewed interest in traditional family values. After watching the loneliness, instability, and social breakdown of the last two decades, many in my generation are rediscovering what older generations once took for granted: marriage matters, family matters, and children are not obstacles to fulfillment but central to it. This isn’t nostalgia; it’s realism. Gen Z wants meaning, not just mobility. We want strong relationships, safe neighborhoods, and a culture that doesn’t sneer at commitment.
Conservatives should lean into this—not with lectures, but with policies that make it possible to start and raise a family. That means an economy where a young family has the chance to create a home and build a foundation for the future, a tax code that doesn’t treat marriage like a liability, and leaders who value faith, responsibility, and strong bonds across generations. When conservatives defend the family, we aren’t clinging to the past — we’re offering a future Gen Z actually wants.
The fight for America’s soul isn’t about writing off an entire generation. It’s about proving that our ideas can meet real needs in real lives. Gen Z is open, skeptical, and looking for answers. If conservatives are honest about the economic realities we’re dealing with and defend the institutions that make life meaningful, my generation won’t just listen — we’ll lead.
* * *
Jake Matthews is a communications manager for technology, economics, and energy at The Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Group of young multi-ethnic startup business team collaborating on project in modern office

Gen Z Isn’t Lost. We’re Looking For A Conservatism That Works.

Gen Z

Heritage Foundation

Housing

Opinion

Real estate

President Donald J. Trump, in his January 6, 2026, address marking National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, reaffirmed the administration’s unwavering commitment to ending modern-day slavery, holding traffickers accountable, and empowering survivors to rebuild their lives. That is why the bipartisan Trafficking Survivors Relief Act, which passed both the House and Senate unanimously, is so important.
Human trafficking is not only one of the most vicious crimes in the world, but also one of the most profitable. Modern-day slavery has become a multibillion-dollar criminal enterprise where the supply and demand are the same thing: human beings. People are bought and sold again and again, not because trafficking is hidden, but because it is high-reward and low-risk. Traffickers too often evade justice. Too frequently, victims cannot find justice.
For eight years, Hollie lived that reality.
“My traffickers stripped me of my freedom, my income, my career, my safety, my family, my reputation, my body, and nearly my life.”
When Hollie finally escaped exploitation, she did not step into freedom. She stepped into a system that failed to recognize her as a victim. Instead of protection, she faced punishment. Instead of justice, she faced criminalization for acts she was forced to commit to survive.
That experience is not unique. It is tragically common.
Traffickers routinely coerce victims into committing crimes, selling sex, transporting drugs, using false identification, or engaging in financial fraud, solely for the trafficker’s benefit. This is known as forced criminality, and it is a well-documented reality of human trafficking. Yet when government systems fail to properly identify victims, survivors are arrested, prosecuted, and left with criminal records that follow them long after they escape.
Those records become invisible shackles.
They block access to jobs, housing, education, and financial stability. They keep survivors trapped in cycles of poverty and vulnerability. And they send a devastating message: that the law holds victims responsible for crimes committed against them.
As Hollie has said, “I did not emerge from exploitation into freedom. I emerged into a system that did not know how to see me, protect me, or distinguish me from the crimes committed against me.”
That is not justice.
Conservatives believe in accountability. However, accountability must be placed where it belongs: on the criminals, not the victims. Traffickers should face the full force of the law. Survivors should not be punished for surviving.
This legislation is not symbolic. It is corrective. Many states have already enacted this type of legislation; however, the federal government has been behind the curve.
The Trafficking Survivors Relief Act creates a clear federal pathway for survivors of human trafficking to vacate and expunge convictions for non-violent crimes that resulted directly from their exploitation. It also establishes an affirmative defense to prevent wrongful convictions before they happen. In doing so, it restores integrity to the justice system by ensuring prosecutors recognize and pursue the true perpetrators of crime.
As the bill’s lead sponsor, Congressman Russell Fry of South Carolina, rightly noted, “It makes sense to give prosecutors tools in their toolbox to go after the true perpetrators of these crimes and not the victims themselves. This is common sense.”
He is right. Survivors should never have carried the legal consequences of their traffickers’ crimes in the first place.
This bill is survivor-informed, shaped by those who understand firsthand how systems fail and how they can be fixed. Survivors know that justice cannot end at initial recovery or prosecution — it must extend into long-term restoration, independence, and self-sufficiency.
Hollie has spent years working with law enforcement to improve victim identification, advising prosecutors and judges on survivor-centered justice, partnering with service providers to ensure help does not end at crisis, and collaborating with financial institutions and policymakers to empower survivors to rebuild their lives.
The Trafficking Survivors Relief Act represents American leadership with moral clarity.
The United States can now become the only country with federal legislation that explicitly recognizes forced criminality and provides survivors a clear legal path to relief from convictions tied to their exploitation. That matters. A just nation protects the innocent, punishes the guilty, and restores those who have been wronged.
This law gives survivors a real second chance — the chance to work, to secure housing, to pursue education, and to fully participate in American life without being haunted by crimes they were forced to commit.
It replaces punishment with accountability.
Justice should heal. Justice should be restored. And justice should never ask survivors to carry the crimes of their traffickers.
With the passage of the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act, America takes an important step toward making that principle the law of the land.
* * *
Mercedes “Mercy” Schlapp is a CPAC Senior Fellow and former senior White House advisor to President Donald Trump, as well as Director of Specialty Media for President George W. Bush. She is a Republican strategist, media commentator, and co-host of CPAC 365 and America Uncanceled.
Hollie Nadel is a survivor of human trafficking and a graduate of Ithaca College. In recent years, Nadel has prioritized raising awareness of the reality of human trafficking, serving as a consultant for anti-trafficking organizations. She received her certification from the ACAMS/ Liechtenstein Initiative for Finance Against Slavery and Trafficking, provided survivor support for the Survivor Inclusion Initiative, and is currently working to pass additional anti-trafficking legislation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

President Trump Speaks At The House GOP Member Retreat

The Trafficking Survivors Relief Act Puts Justice Back Where It Belongs

CPAC

Donald Trump

Human Trafficking

Trump Administration

People Magazine and several other outlets are getting dragged for the headlines they used to report the death of cartoonist Scott Adams on Tuesday.
Adams, best known for creating the satirical comic strip “Dilbert,” died at the age of 68 following a terminal cancer diagnosis. Most mainstream outlets stuck to the facts or buried their criticisms of Adams deep in the article copy. The Left despised him for being a conservative and a huge fan of Donald Trump.
But some outlets put their bias front and center. People ran an article by staff writer Victoria Eden, which had the headline: “Scott Adams, Disgraced Dilbert Creator, Dies at 68,” and followed up with the subheading, “&#8217;Dilbert&#8217; was pulled from wide circulation after Adams’ racist rant in 2023.”
Social media followers expressed their frustration over the phrasing.
“You cannot hate the media enough,” one X reply <a href="https://x.com/mattvanswol/status/2011128217609130295">said</a> in response to the article being tweeted from the official People X account. That tweet was later deleted, but the article with the same headline still remains on the website as of Tuesday afternoon.
The outlet also removed Edel’s name from the online article and replaced it with “People Staff” after commenters began calling her out by name on the social media platform.
It wasn’t just People disparaging Adams as they reported on his death. While The New York Times selected a neutral headline on their website, the accompanying social post was more opinionated.
“Breaking News: Scott Adams, whose comic strip &#8216;Dilbert&#8217; was a sensation until he made racist comments on his podcast, has died at 68,” the legacy outlet shared in an X post.
“Stuff like this used to make me angry, but I honestly laughed as your hack behavior is too predictable. You will be hated until your dying days, you have no loved ones, when you die, people will rejoice,” one response to the NYT post <a href="https://x.com/Cernovich/status/2011135485494829274">said</a>.
“You have no shame. Unreal,” echoed <a href="https://x.com/realELFIGURIN/status/2011129288146210992">another</a>.
BBC News went with the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y320k72vyo">headline</a>: “Controversial Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams dies aged 68.” NPR also <a href="https://www.npr.org/2026/01/13/nx-s1-5413219/scott-adams-dilbert-dies">referred to</a> Adams as a “controversial cartoonist” in their article.
“Scott Adams, ‘Dilbert’ Creator Who Courted Controversy, Dead at 68,” the headline from far-Left outlet Rolling Stone <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/scott-adams-dilbert-creator-dead-obtiuary-1235496233/">said</a>.
Some X users contrasted this phrasing to how mainstream outlets covered other notorious figures like convicted sex predator Jeffrey Epstein. For Epstein’s death, The New York Times ran the headline, “Jeffrey Epstein Dead in Suicide at Jail, Spurring Inquiries.”
The controversy these outlets reference goes back to the “Dilbert” cartoon being dropped from major newspapers following an incident in 2023. During a podcast episode, Adams discussed a Rasmussen poll, which found that nearly half of black Americans were unable to agree with the phrase, “It’s okay to be white.” Adams’ reply suggesting that the poll results indicate that black Americans are a “hate group” went viral.
“Based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people. Just get the f*** away,” Adams said at the time after commenting further on race relations and crime.
“Wherever you have to go, just get away. Because there’s no fixing this. This can’t be fixed. So I don’t think it makes any sense as a white citizen of America to try to help black citizens anymore. It doesn’t make sense. There’s no longer a rational impulse. So I’m going to back off on being helpful to black America because it doesn’t seem like it pays off.”

Scott Adams

People Magazine Obit Calls Scott Adams ‘Disgraced Dilbert Creator,’ Spurring Backlash

People Magazine Obit Calls Scott Adams 'Disgraced Dilbert Creator,' Spurring Backlash

Death

Entertainment

Mainstream Media

Media

Media Bias

U.S.

Former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino officially stepped down from his government post on Saturday, and he&#8217;s fed up — not with President Donald Trump or the administration, but with the &#8220;black-piller, chicken-little grifters&#8221; who are harming the conservative movement.
In a post that quickly went viral on Monday, Bongino said he was &#8220;sure as hell&#8221; not going to allow the conservative movement to be &#8220;hijacked by a group of black-pillers, life-losers, grifters and bums.&#8221;
On Tuesday, he was back at it, ripping grifters on the Right and the &#8220;tactics&#8221; they use to &#8220;bullsh*t&#8221; conservatives.
&#8220;The support for the Trump administration in the working world is strong. And people are tired of the endless bullsh*t from the black-piller, chicken-little grifters. Watch their tactics, and once you see them, you’ll never unsee them. They use a couple of different tactics to bullsh*t you,&#8221; Bongino <a href="https://x.com/dbongino/status/2008568396074328076?s=46&amp;t=o-U3qwC25WnWaylJ0oeG7Q">wrote</a> on X.
He then called out grifters on the Right who pretend to conduct explosive investigative work but are really just &#8220;charlatans and morons.&#8221;
&#8220;First, they overload you with information but they underwhelm you with evidence. Here’s an example of what I mean &#8211; they’ll try to convince you that John Smith robbed a bank, so they’ll data download on you and lose you in the chaos,&#8221; he said. &#8220;They’ll tell you things that might be true, but aren’t evidence of anything. They’ll tell you John was in the bank that day. That John knew someone who worked there. That John was arrested ten years ago for a misdemeanor. But they won’t tell you that the fingerprints, video and DNA of the thief matches someone else. Solid investigators sift through chaotic information and mine the evidence gems. Charlatans and morons do the opposite.&#8221;
Bongino also called out &#8220;black-pillers,&#8221; a term that refers to people who hold nihilistic and fatalistic views, who try to attack Trump&#8217;s agenda without attacking him directly. Often, these &#8220;black-pillers&#8221; attempt to convince their audience that a Trump policy will have devastating consequences without specifically calling out Trump, Bongino said.
&#8220;You’re seeing it now with regard to Venezuela,&#8221; he added. &#8220;Will it work out? Maybe. We will all see. But maybe give it a minute before you attack from inside the tent while pretending you’re an ally.&#8221;
&#8220;I want to be clear on this point, intra-party/movement policy disagreements are healthy and natural,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;But endless pessimism meant to strategically attack a movement from the inside, is not about policy, it’s political cannibalism. And many of these grifters are hiding their real agendas from you.&#8221;
In his post on Monday, Bongino urged conservatives to avoid getting sucked into ideas that undercut the movement&#8217;s principles. “We are a movement guided by truth. The essence of conservative ideology is the preservation of eternal truths,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We are not the ‘latest thing’ group. We are not political cannibals.&#8221;
Bongino did not call anyone out by name, but this issue has been brewing for months within the conservative movement and came to the forefront during Turning Point USA&#8217;s AmericaFest last month. In his opening night speech at AmericaFest, Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ben-shapiro-at-tpusa-the-right-needs-truth-not-grifters-and-frauds">called out</a> “grifters” on the Right — specifically, Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens — for spouting views that are antithetical to conservative ideals.
It&#8217;s unclear who exactly Bongino believes is a &#8220;grifter&#8221; and a &#8220;black-piller&#8221; in the conservative movement, but with the return of his show, which he promised to announce soon, his listeners will likely find out.
&#8220;Black-pillers and grifters asked for this fight, not us. But I’m absolutely down to fight it. ABSOLUTELY down,&#8221; he said.
Bongino also got into a back-and-forth with former Rep. Matt Gaetz on Tuesday. Gaetz stepped down from Congress in 2024 after he was tapped to become the attorney general in the new Trump administration. However, he eventually withdrew his name from consideration amid an Ethics Committee investigation into his alleged sexual relationship with a 17 year old and his alleged illegal drug use.
After Gaetz responded to one of Bongino&#8217;s recent posts and asked Grok how Bongino performed in his past runs for Senate and House, Bongino fired back, &#8220;Maybe if I spent more time at shady parties with monied insiders I would’ve won. I heard you’d know a bit about that,&#8221; Bongino said. &#8220;You’ve always been a dick by the way. Grifting off your daddy like a suckling little doggie. When I first met you in the panhandle I knew you were a piece of sh*t. It’s written all over that phony face of yours.&#8221;
Gaetz replied, &#8220;I’m glad you remember meeting me so many years ago. I recall you gave a moving speech about your time in law enforcement. I told you I liked it. I’m deeply proud of my father. We make a great team. Are you saying having a successful father is a bad thing? Did you share that viewpoint with President Trump? Or Don Jr? I share your distain for monied insiders. It’s why I was the ONLY Republican in congress who refused lobbyist and PAC donations.&#8221;
&#8220;You made a post about being a candidate for office during the tea party movement, and twice thereafter,&#8221; he added. &#8220;I didn’t know that full history so I simply asked @grok if you had won any of those elections. Apparently, you underperformed as a political candidate. But you’re a world class streamer. Cool. Take a chill pill, Dan.&#8221;
&#8220;That’s right doggie, backpedal away. Good move,&#8221; Bongino fired back. &#8220;Now go blame the Jews for your dumbass tweet.&#8221;
This article has been updated to clarify that Matt Gaetz resigned from Congress after being tapped to serve as attorney general.

Dan Bongino

Dan Bongino Has Been Out Of The Government For 3 Days, And He’s Louder Than Ever

Dan Bongino Has Been Out Of The Government For 3 Days, And He's Louder Than Ever

In the waning days of the Obama administration, the most fun thing you could do on the website then called Twitter was debate whether something was actually something else. Is a hot dog a sandwich? Is “Die Hard” a Christmas movie?
It was a blast, for a time. Then people got too into it (“PopTarts are ravioli”) and ruined the fun for the rest of us, right around the time that Trump took office, and Twitter got lame. Still, a version of this game has persisted on the right, because conservatives love nothing more than declaring clearly non-conservative things secretly conservative.
I’ll admit, there was a time when I loved this game. It got me a few good tweets and at least one passable op-ed. But like the sandwich debate, it got out of hand. I don’t want to read 5,000 words on how “Eyes Wide Shut” is actually about Christianity and tax cuts. You’re embarrassing yourself.
But like a reformed thief who can’t help but case every room he walks into, I can’t completely quiet the contrarian movie revisionism that lives inside me. Is “Anchorman” a commentary on Watergate? Is “Jerry Maguire” a modern retelling of King Midas? Probably not! But who cares? I’m free to think whatever I want, and the worst thing that happens is I bore my wife to death.
Except today. Because today, dear reader, I’m going to bore you to death.
The goal: see if we can make the case for why every Christmas movie is conservative. The criteria for film selection and judgment: vibes, and a healthy dash of the Christmas spirit.
Let’s dive in.
&nbsp;
<h3>White Christmas</h3>
<div id="attachment_844723" style="width: 768px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-844723" class="size-large wp-image-844723" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-530787520-758x576.jpg" alt="" width="758" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-530787520-758x576.jpg 758w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-530787520-300x228.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-530787520-768x583.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-530787520-1536x1167.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-530787520-2048x1556.jpg 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 758px) 100vw, 758px" />Bing Crosby, Rosemary Clooney, Vera-Ellen, and Danny Kaye (Photo by George Rinhart/Corbis via Getty Images)</div>
By far the easiest one on the list. As I <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/white-christmas-is-the-festive-film-for-our-time" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote last year</a>, “White Christmas” is a movie about America adjusting from World War II to the postwar boom. More broadly, the movie teaches us that it’s “okay to be okay, to be successful and happy, even — especially! — shortly after a period of national tumult.”
Defeating the Nazis, getting rich, and marrying Rosemary Clooney: they really were the Greatest Generation.
Verdict: More conservative than General Patton.
&nbsp;
<h3>The Santa Clause</h3>
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Bx8FX7etF_8?si=nUdVZ40FvLHQ1T_g" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
This may or may not be the movie that launched this ridiculous exercise. In this 90s Disney classic, Scott Calvin (Tim Allen), a hardworking toy salesman and loving single father, has his son taken away from him because he lets the lad believe in Santa.
The enemy: his ex-wife, Laura, and her new husband, Neal, a smug psychiatrist with an admittedly cool sweater collection. Egged on by Neal, Laura weaponizes the courts and the public school system to take Charlie from Scott, all because he wants his son to believe in Santa.
If you wanted, you could read the whole movie as an allegory about parental rights, belief in God, and the dangers of an overreaching state. Or you could just enjoy the killer 90s style and classic Tim Allen performance.
Verdict: As conservative as Tim The Tool Man, the best Republican celebrity.
&nbsp;
<h3>Four Christmases</h3>
<div id="attachment_1012997" style="width: 842px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1012997" class="size-large wp-image-1012997" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-83863813-832x576.jpg" alt="" width="832" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-83863813-832x576.jpg 832w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-83863813-300x208.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-83863813-768x532.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/GettyImages-83863813.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 832px) 100vw, 832px" />(JEWEL SAMAD/AFP via Getty Images)</div>
Kate (Reese Witherspoon) and Brad (Vince Vaughn) are unmarried, childless partners who spend every Christmas avoiding their families. When their vacation gets cancelled, they have to split their time between all four of their divorced parents.
Like “The Santa Clause,” this is a movie about how you shouldn’t get divorced (a lot of Christmas movies are about divorce being bad, by the way — Hollywood therapists must really be rolling in it this time of year).
But “Four Christmases” does double duty, because it’s also a movie about how you should get married and have children and not waste your life on frivolities. Kate and Brad insist they’re happy as they are, but as the movie goes on, it becomes incredibly clear that this isn’t true.
Also, Robert Duvall uses the phrase “first class ass sniffer” while drinking a Bud Heavy. Need I say more?
Verdict: Four Conservatives.
&nbsp;
<h3>It’s A Wonderful Life</h3>
<div id="attachment_478828" style="width: 775px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-478828" class="size-large wp-image-478828" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/12/GettyImages-1187707436-765x576.jpg" alt="LOS ANGELES - DECEMBER 20: The movie &quot;It's a Wonderful Life&quot;, produced and directed by Frank Capra. Seen here from left, Donna Reed as Mary Hatch Bailey, James Stewart as George Bailey and Karolyn Grimes as Zuzu. Premiered December 20, 1946; theatrical wide release January 7, 1947. Screen capture. Paramount Pictures. (Photo by CBS via Getty Images)" width="765" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/12/GettyImages-1187707436-765x576.jpg 765w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/12/GettyImages-1187707436-300x226.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/12/GettyImages-1187707436-768x578.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/12/GettyImages-1187707436.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 765px) 100vw, 765px" />(Photo by CBS via Getty Images)</div>
I’ll be honest: I don’t like this movie and haven’t seen it in a long time. But it’s definitely the Christmas movie with the most think pieces behind it. Dorks on the Left and Right alike love to opine about how the Frank Capra classic is really about capitalism or industrialism or whatever.
But I only remember two things about it: young George wants to have a harem when he grows up, and there’s an angel who confirms the existence of Heaven and, by extension, God.
Based.
Verdict: it’s conservative, you old building and loan!
&nbsp;
<h3>Santa Claus Is Comin&#8217; To Town</h3>
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z9DXamm2maA?si=sxAJhSEpLm5TiK7f" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
An average Joe puts on some muscle mass and grows a righteous beard, bags the town hottie, and defeats a scowling German fascist. It’s basically Captain America.
Ironically, this is the only Rankin/Bass claymation classic that makes the conservative cut. &#8220;The Little Drummer Boy&#8221; is heretical, probably. &#8220;Frosty the Snowman&#8221; is about voodoo. &#8220;Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer&#8221; is a love-yourself monstrosity that’s one glitter bomb short of a Lady Gaga musical, and also promotes Hermie, who wants to be a dentist. Pervert.
Verdict: conservative, but suspicious by association.
&nbsp;
<h3>How The Grinch Stole Christmas</h3>
<div id="attachment_504862" style="width: 975px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-504862" class="size-large wp-image-504862" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/Grinch-965x576.jpg" alt="Grinch" width="965" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/Grinch-965x576.jpg 965w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/Grinch-300x179.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/Grinch-768x459.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/Grinch-1536x917.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/Grinch.jpg 1730w" sizes=" (max-width: 965px) 100vw, 965px" />ABC Photo Archives/Disney General Entertainment Content via Getty Images</div>
An important corrective to the aforementioned red-nosed reindeer. In Dr. Seuss’s classic tale, a community successfully shames an outsider into conformity and accepting the magic of Christmas. (See also: every Hallmark Christmas movie).
Also, since the Whos of Whoville only care about Christmas, we have to conclude that the Grinch eventually accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Dahoo Dores? More like Deo Gratias!
Verdict: Conservative like a rare slice of Roast Beast.
&nbsp;
<h3>Love, Actually</h3>
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QyN9E08vFSY?si=yIeGPwNbv3dIf0tX" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe> 
You may be shocked that this one made the cut, considering it&#8217;s very fashionable every year for people to “realize” that “Love, Actually” is kind of a twisted flick, actually.
The guy from the &#8220;The Walking Dead&#8221; stalks his buddy’s wife. Professor Snape cheats on Emma Thompson and then adds insult to injury by giving her the worst Joni Mitchell album ever. The British prime minister sees the American president trying to grope his secretary and responds by… groping his secretary. There are multiple lobsters in the Nativity play. There’s a whole subplot that’s just people filming a porn! It’s all kinds of nasty, and not very Christmassy.
But here’s the thing: it’s British people doing all this gross stuff. The movie is actually an expose on how the English are moral degenerates. And the American president is clearly supposed to be Bill Clinton. Honestly, I’m amazed we didn’t produce this movie.
Verdict: conservative enough to make Maggie Thatcher crack a smile.

Untitled design (83)

Is Every Christmas Movie Secretly Conservative?

Christmas

Christmas movies

It's A Wonderful Life

Santa Claus

Judge II

The Strange Tradition The Left Is Using To Undermine Republicans

Judges

Judiciary

Matt Walsh

Thanksgiving is a time when families thrive, and our conservative movement can learn key lessons from this uniquely American tradition as we move forward together.
Let’s begin with what’s best about the day: a shared table, familiar laughter, and the quiet grace of gratitude. Gratitude is not the fruit of harmony; it is the seed. Traditions renew; children grow up knowing the laugh of a cousin; and an uncle regales with stories of where the family came from. The mystic chords of memory, those invisible threads that bind generations, grow stronger and endure.
Thanksgiving is meant to be practiced. The meaningful work of breaking bread with people who vote differently, pray differently, and have different points of view preserves more than a holiday tradition. Amongst people you don’t always like but with whom you share a deep bond is where public deliberation starts — a practice foundational to American self-government. We keep the muscle memory of belonging to something larger than ourselves.
What’s true for our families is, of course, also true for our conservative movement and the nation we all endeavor to save.
Ronald Reagan is often remembered for saying, &#8220;All great change in America begins at the dinner table.” What is left out, however, is the line that follows: “So, tomorrow night in the kitchen, I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven&#8217;t been teaching you what it means to be an American, let &#8217;em know and nail &#8217;em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.&#8221;
Let the talking begin this week — and let our conversations be an invitation to those we love to once again find unity in our purpose, first as families and then as a nation. At Heritage, we’ve started this family conversation, centered around four questions plain enough to ask around the dinner table and significant enough to guide a movement and save a republic:
What does it mean to be a flourishing American family?
What does it mean to honor the dignity of work and secure the future of free enterprise?
What does it mean to have true national security?
What does it mean to be an American citizen?
At Heritage, we have a point of view, confident in our thinking and our institution’s 52 years of robust intellectual history. We believe that united, good-faith conservatives will engage in this discussion. We are also certain we know what a restored America looks like:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Marriage and family celebrated, not ignored or mocked.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Work dignified, wages rising, and two incomes a family choice, not a necessity.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Borders secure, military strong, enemies deterred.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Children learning truth — not ideology — in educational institutions that parents control.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Faith respected, civic virtue restored, patriotism the norm.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Government limited, debt shrinking, freedom expanding.</li>
</ul>
We call this Heritage 2.0 inside our organization, where every colleague contributed to its creation. We present it to you as our battle plan to save America.
Let there be no mistake; we are taking back Washington to save America. That puts a target on us — from the uniparty, the entrenched bureaucracy, and the deep state. Now may be a suitable time to reiterate with clarity our message to the purveyors of the status quo: Bring it on.
We sweat not for the elites, but for everyday Americans. We toil not to be keyboard warriors but to chart a course of national renewal. The future of conservatism — a fusion of old and new right — will succeed when we return power to the people.
Today’s populism didn&#8217;t emerge in a vacuum. It arose from failed leadership, calcified institutions, and elites who prioritized bureaucracy over everyday Americans. The people aren&#8217;t seeking minor fixes; they&#8217;re challenging the very credibility of the system, and often, they&#8217;re spot on. This ought to inspire our movement!
The clearest path to returning power to the people is through a wholehearted rejuvenation of federalism. We will never lose sight of the many millions who feel the weight of the world on their shoulders. More than any organization across the country, Heritage is fully engaged in the work required to ensure a free, self-governing people can raise families and engage in community and commerce with peace, principles, and prosperity.
Of course, the people will decide our future, as President Trump last week noted, appealing to the beauty of our American system. We are clear-eyed that our effort comes at a time of cultural and civic strain. But we’ve been here before. My friend and predecessor Ed Feulner wrote in his book The March of Freedom that conservatism is “a broad social movement of diverse but reinforcing beliefs, gathering travelers on the same journey — pilgrims who argue over the topography of their promised land but move in the same direction.”
As Vice President Vance also said, the forces arrayed against conservatives of all stripes have massive resources, and there is a point where infighting becomes counterproductive.
So, let us pull up chairs at the family table. Let us channel that turbulent passion and refine it with cool reason through public deliberation. Let us all be builders of a better America. Just as we will nurture the family tree through open dialogue, let us build America’s next 250 years under a thriving canopy of vibrant, interconnected branches rooted in self-governance.
Our Heritage is our future. Through it, together, we will save the republic and secure its future.
* * *
Kevin Roberts, Ph.D., is president of the Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
* * *
<h3>Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.</h3>

Roberts III

Thanksgiving, The Family Table, And A Playbook For The Work Ahead

Border

Education

Faith

There was a time not so long ago when Americans debated ideas around dinner tables, not timelines. We wrestled with differences in living rooms, classrooms, and church halls. But now? We live in the age of &#8220;I don’t believe you. Prove me wrong.&#8221; The default mode of curious conversation has turned into combat.
Scroll through any comment section and you’ll see it: people don’t log on to learn, they log on to win. They enter digital arenas, not classrooms. Social media has turned intellectual inquiry into an Olympic sport of outrage where every disagreement demands a takedown, every nuance is flattened into a meme, and every opponent becomes an enemy. That shift—from curiosity to cynicism—is quietly dismantling the very foundation of a free society: Trust.
Once upon a time, conservatism—and really, American discourse as a whole—was built on questions. Our Founders argued fiercely, but the goal was understanding. Debate was an act of discovery, not destruction. “Teach me” was the posture of a citizen who loved truth more than tribe.
Today, that posture is rare. We’ve mistaken being informed for being inflexible. We say, “I’ve done my research,” but really mean “I’ve read five posts that agree with me.” We talk about “owning the libs” or “crushing the cons,” but what we’ve really destroyed is the middle ground where reason used to live. This new culture doesn’t seek understanding. Rather, it seeks affirmation. The tragedy is that the tools meant to connect us have been weaponized to divide us.
Let’s be honest: social media isn’t a modern-day marketplace of ideas. It’s a slot machine that rewards outrage. Every swipe and tap feeds a machine designed to give you more of what you already like. It’s not expanding your mind; it’s tightening your echo chamber.
As a capitalist, I have no problem with profit. Platforms are businesses, not ministries. Their product is attention—and they’ve mastered the art of keeping it. But when the free market of attention becomes the only market that matters, ideas become entertainment, and truth becomes whatever gets the most clicks. The algorithm doesn’t care if you’re right—it cares if you’re riled up. It feeds you more of what you think you want instead of what you might need. It’s like a spiritual diet of junk food: easy to consume, but hard on the soul.
And look, I get it. I have social media, too. (<a href="https://x.com/GatesGarciaFL">Please follow me</a> before I sound too self-righteous.) But it’s time we’re honest about what these platforms are and what they aren’t. They aren’t designed to elevate ideas; they’re designed to amplify emotion.
At 40 years old, I still remember what life looked like before all this—before the dopamine hits, before algorithms knew our habits better than our parents did. I remember when you actually had to call someone to argue about politics, when disagreement came with a voice, a tone, a relationship. But we’re now raising entire generations that only know a world filtered through social media. And the ramifications of that are enormous. Kids are learning to form their identities in front of an audience instead of within a family. They’re measuring truth in likes, not logic.
The answer, though, isn’t to abandon social media altogether. Like any tool, it can build or destroy depending on who’s holding it. Used well, it’s the most powerful communications platform in human history. It can spread truth faster than tyranny, unify movements for good, and give a voice to people long ignored by legacy media.
That’s the paradox of our age: we have the means to hold the world’s largest conversation, yet we’ve reduced it to a shouting match. Free markets are supposed to thrive on innovation and exchange, but our digital marketplace has become a monopoly of emotion. And that’s not capitalism. That’s chaos.
As conservatives, we should be leading the charge to reclaim these platforms for dialogue, not diatribe. Free speech is more than the right to speak. It’s the responsibility to listen. We should want social media to be the world’s public square, not its virtual food fight.
Imagine if, instead of “prove me wrong,” we started from “help me understand.” Imagine a culture where humility was a virtue again, not a weakness. That’s not naïve—it’s necessary.
Before social media, you couldn’t just parachute into a conversation armed with rage and a Wi-Fi connection. You had to engage face-to-face. There were natural filters: manners, context, tone. You couldn’t just drop a bomb and vanish into anonymity. Those days weren’t perfect, but our debates had weight. They demanded patience, presence, and perspective. Today, our political culture is built for the opposite. Speed over thought. Visibility over virtue. Snark over substance.
We used to shake hands after arguments. Now we block people. That’s not progress. That’s paralysis.
The challenge before us isn’t simply to win elections; it’s to win back curiosity. To remind a cynical culture that disagreement isn’t dangerous—it’s democratic and that the purpose of argument is not annihilation but illumination.
If conservatives want to shape the next generation, we have to model what it means to seek truth, not just victory. We can defend principles and still learn from people. We can hold convictions without closing our minds.
There’s nothing “soft” about humility. Jesus Himself—who held the ultimate truth—still asked questions, still taught through dialogue, still invited people to understand. Maybe that’s the model we need again.
So, here’s my modest proposal: the next time someone says something you disagree with online, try answering with, “I don’t understand, teach me.” It won’t always work. Some people will still argue in bad faith. But if enough of us adopt that posture, we might just start rebuilding the bridges that algorithms have burned.
Because at the end of the day, a nation built on freedom depends on the free exchange of ideas. Not just the loud ones. The honest ones.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go post this on social media. And please—prove me wrong by following me there.
Gates Garcia is the host of the YouTube show and podcast We The People. Follow him on IG and X @GatesGarciaFL
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Social Media And Messaging Apps

From ‘Teach Me’ To ‘Prove Me Wrong’: How Social Media Killed Curiosity

America

Division

Free Speech

Freedom

Liberals

Social Media

When you think about corporate wokeness, what comes to mind? DEI and ESG policies might be the most prominent examples, for good reason. But as someone in the industry of corporate engagement, helping investors use their financial influence to root out bias from America’s biggest brands, we often find ourselves asking this question: who determines parameters? Wokeness is parasitical, and its most subtle and pernicious effects emerge by latching on to legitimate corporate policies and twisting them to serve political ends.
Among the most parasitical of these organizations is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). An activist group <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/about/our-history/">formed</a> in 1971 to combat the influence of Jim Crow, the SPLC has gradually <a href="https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/heritage-explains/what-went-wrong-the-southern-poverty-law-center">morphed</a> into a group peddling the false equivalence between conservatives and hate groups. Case in point: the SPLC’s infamous “<a href="https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map/?hm_year=2024&amp;hm_ideology=Neo-Nazi">hate map</a>.” The SPLC would like you to <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Making-Hate-Pay-Corruption-Southern/dp/1642934399">believe</a> that the map represents American hate in an image, with many of the groups on the map, such as the Klan, white supremacists, and the Westboro Baptist Church, being genuine hate groups. And yet, when you look at the list, you’ll see some groups that decidedly aren’t hateful: Alliance Defending Freedom, American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Moms for Liberty — and an Arizona-based nonprofit called Turning Point USA. The SPLC specifically <a href="https://www.facebook.com/SPLCenter/posts/at-the-forefront-of-the-movement-to-promote-christian-supremacy-is-turning-point/1116433363845757/">lambasted</a> TPUSA as ‘hard-right’ in June of 2025, and <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/turning-point-usa-case-study-hard-right-2024/">even</a> smeared them as part of the political Right’s alleged efforts to “enforce a social order rooted in white supremacy.” Let’s be clear: the SPLC isn’t giving you a hate list. This is a list of groups, ranging from true extremists to normal conservative groups, that the Southern Poverty Law Center would simply like you to believe are all hateful.
<div id="attachment_995255" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map/"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-995255" class="wp-image-995255 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/SPLC-hate-map-1024x534.jpg" alt="Screenshot: SPLC/Hate Map" width="1024" height="534" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/SPLC-hate-map-1024x534.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/SPLC-hate-map-300x156.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/SPLC-hate-map-768x401.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/SPLC-hate-map-1536x801.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/SPLC-hate-map.jpg 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>Screenshot: SPLC/Hate Map</div>
What matters right now is that some of America’s biggest companies have used the list to guide their corporate policies. Brands as big as Meta (Facebook), Alphabet (Google), and Amazon have used the SPLC’s Hate List for everything from writing their ‘hate speech’ policies to determining which charities they’ll support via employee philanthropy programs. In the SPLC’s eyes (a perspective granted legitimacy by some of the world’s most prominent brands), groups like Turning Point were indeed synonymous with hate.
It’s not about corporations approving of Charlie Kirk’s death (to my knowledge, that hasn’t happened). It’s about corporations enforcing bias, discriminating against conservative and Christian organizations, under the mistaken belief that this means stopping hate. If we are to move away from a society where people are shot for their political and religious views, this premise must be completely repudiated by America’s private sector. We have serious work to do.
And conservatives are <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/10/19/manufacturing-hate-conservatives-pressure-companies-drop-ties-splc/">spearheading</a> that work and using their influence to hold companies accountable for relying on the SPLC’s metrics.
This isn’t about politics, at the end of the day. It’s about getting back to business. It’s almost impossible for a company to claim to have a serious policy on combating “hate” when the organizations that define “hateful” think that the KKK and Turning Point USA belong in the same category. (This is perhaps most evident with companies like Etsy, which apparently has a problem with SPLC-deemed hate groups like TPUSA, <a href="https://www.etsy.com/legal/prohibited/">citing</a> the SPLC in their hate policies, but less of a problem with literal witches that used Etsy to <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/paid-etsy-witches-curse-charlie-124930762.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKyrSgpE_OwZ4ZR9-uaiwD15C8F7KUQ405vwpfm8CjcwAeChUfbh3bmjBTuc8iTlS74uYN3GdjWWsjSOo_gGO4Dw16hFSDCc3lCkWsbXSKy1gKoLh2Bpbh7lCm3xFwWgHkWF7b7nDllJwQMVulraHE_qktJz9S6stmmTzmYVYe-h">buy</a> an actual “hate” hex to put on Charlie Kirk shortly before he died. Because that’s not hate speech.)
As The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles recently <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzs6dy74Ew8">told</a> Congress, left-wing political violence is a serious threat to the marketplace of ideas in 2025. The Southern Poverty Law Center is only part of the problem. But, as the FBI cuts <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/10/03/breaking-kash-patels-fbi-cuts-all-ties-southern-poverty-law-center/">ties</a> with the SPLC, it’s time for America’s private sector to do the same. Corporate America didn’t get Charlie Kirk killed — a gunman who believed Kirk was spreading hate did. But it’s time to get serious about how organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center reflect the same poisonous idea: that conservatism and Christianity are hateful. We are seeing now that some people will take that framing and use it to rip the peaceful fabric of society apart.
The post-Charlie Kirk world isn’t one where we can afford to wallow. There’s work to be done. It’s time for us to take all the sadness and grief of this moment and channel it into culture-building energy — for Charlie, and for the country we all love. The SPLC, and a disturbing amount of the Left, would like you (and many of America’s biggest brands) to believe that mainstream conservative views are akin to hate. That idea doesn’t warrant any support in the ideas market. And the organizations that promote that idea don’t deserve to guide our capital markets.
The best time for corporate America to ditch the SPLC was years ago, before a 31-year-old husband and father lost his life after being smeared as part of a hate group. The second-best time is now.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Raised Fist Hand Protest in flat icon design on red color ray background

How The Southern Poverty Law Center Poisoned Corporate America

Charlie Kirk

Corporations

Democrats

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Hate Speech

Leftists

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

TPUSA

It has never been said “So goes New Jersey, so goes the nation.” But next month’s gubernatorial election here between Democrat Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill and Republican former State Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli may indeed be a bellwether regarding how the midterms will play out next year.
This is an interesting state. If not solidly blue, it has certainly pitched its tents in the blue camp more often than not. The last ostensible Republican to sit in the governor’s residence of Drumthwacket was the rather pathetic and Trump-deranged Chris Christie — who has since made a career currying favor with left-wing media as their token “Republican.”
Next month voters in the Garden State will have a clear choice as there are genuine challenges facing whoever wins the race.
First off, it is an expensive proposition to both live and run a business in New Jersey. The median price of a single-family home here is $580,000, up 3.5% year-on-year and over 60% in five years. Property taxes on these homes can run you north of $13,000/year. Although this is a strain on finances, in the past we could at least turn to excellent schools as a demonstration of getting a bang for our buck. I personally put two kids through the entire public school system where I live from K-12 and was more than satisfied with the quality of their education (a few spasms of wokeness along the way notwithstanding). But in the past ten years New Jersey has tumbled from having the overall second-highest rated public schools in the country to twelfth. So, what then are we getting for shelling out property taxes — which for many homeowners here is tantamount to a second mortgage — that seem to go up 2% per year like clockwork?
Utility bills are another point of contention. In 2020 the average New Jersey household (median is harder to locate) paid a little over $91/month. As of mid-2025 the number has risen to $162/month. A 78% increase. Increased demand certainly has played a part as data centers, particularly for AI, have a voracious appetite for electricity … this at the same time Democrats have been trying to push consumers into EVs and using electricity as opposed to fossil fuels. Indeed, New Jersey has aggressive clean energy and decarbonization goals. While those are meant to reduce emissions in the long run, in the short run they can introduce costs — e.g. retiring fossil plants, investing in transmission upgrades, subsidies or mandates for renewables, and constraints on new fossil generation. 
 
The New Jersey Democrat Party&#8217;s platform supports &#8220;reducing fossil fuel dependence, expanding renewable energy, and protecting residents from its impacts.&#8221; Our current governor, Phil Murphy, has proposed a &#8220;100% clean energy goal&#8221; and has pushed &#8220;renewable energy&#8221; legislation.
<div id="attachment_988403" style="width: 778px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-988403" class="wp-image-988403 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2213896301-768x576.jpg" alt="RUTHERFORD, NEW JERSEY - MAY 10: Jack Ciattarelli and Matt Servitto attend 2025 Paisan Con at The Williams Center on May 10, 2025 in Rutherford, New Jersey. (Photo by Bobby Bank/Getty Images)" width="768" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2213896301-768x576.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2213896301-300x225.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2213896301.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 768px) 100vw, 768px" />RUTHERFORD, NEW JERSEY &#8211; MAY 10: Jack Ciattarelli and Matt Servitto attend 2025 Paisan Con at The Williams Center on May 10, 2025 in Rutherford, New Jersey. (Photo by Bobby Bank/Getty Images)</div>
New Jersey also has among the highest individual income tax rates in the nation. At 10.8% for the states’ highest earners, it is only superseded by California, Hawaii, and New York. Ciattarelli proposes lowering the top-tier income tax rate to 5% as well as capping property taxes at a percentage of a home’s assessed value. He has also pledged to lower business taxes from 11.5% to 5% and make the first $100,000 in small business income tax-exempt. Businesses are leaving. And, to be frank, but for personal reasons keeping me here, I’d have moved my fund out of this state to more business-friendly environs (not coincidentally red states) years ago. I am not the only one. Of course, it will cost you 2% to leave the state if you sell your home … they get you coming and going here.
Then there are the costs of auto insurance, third highest in the country, and healthcare, which run 15%-20% over the national average. It goes on and on &#8230; and the middle class continues to get squeezed. 
 
Gov. Murphy, a Goldman Sachs alumnus, need not worry about these matters of course. But these are issues that New Jersey residents feel every day, every time the latest utility bill or property tax assessment comes in the mail. Issues that Sherrill especially, pitching for the incumbent party, must address. (Her most sensible policy proposal I have seen is an idea to combine school districts to reduce redundant costs. But she needs more.) Yet, when pressed directly in two separate debates whether she plans to raise taxes, she could not give a straight answer.
And that is part of Sherrill’s problem. She seems unable to answer questions in a manner akin to Kamala Harris, master chef at the word salad bar. In a May 4 interview with CBS New York’s Marcia Kramer, the congresswoman was asked what law she’d like to enact on day one if she became governor. The way Sherrill looked at Kramer you would have thought the woman asked her to tell the world her social security number and ATM pin code. “I would love — that’s a really good question, ‘cause there’s so many that are coming to mind right now.” After stalling for about 18 seconds, she finally offered a meek pitch for a federal block grant program to help the state with “key programs” including ones in the “health care area”. (A less friendly interviewer might have followed up by informing the congresswoman that she would have no control over such grants as governor.)
Sherrill is pushing the “girl boss” motif, leaning on her experience as a Naval aviator to offer a veneer of toughness to resist those who have driven out some of the state’s most valuable taxpayers and businesses. But the last time the GOP held a majority in either chamber of the New Jersey Legislature was 35 years ago. New Jersey is a Democrat-controlled state. So, what policies do we need her to defend us against? Her own party’s?
<div id="attachment_988401" style="width: 877px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-988401" class="wp-image-988401 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2240039071-867x576.jpg" alt="CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY - OCTOBER 11: New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial nominee Mikie Sherrill tours the USS Battleship New Jersey as part of a campaign stop on October 11, 2025 in Camden, New Jersey. Sherrill is set to square off against Republican nominee Jack Ciattarelli on November 4 for the position as New Jersey's 57th governor. (Photo by Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images)" width="867" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2240039071-867x576.jpg 867w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2240039071-300x199.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2240039071-768x510.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2240039071.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 867px) 100vw, 867px" />CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY &#8211; OCTOBER 11: New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial nominee Mikie Sherrill tours the USS Battleship New Jersey. (Photo by Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images)</div>
And this stain of de facto incumbency is about more than just party. Sherrill appears to be a graduate of the Nancy Pelosi School of Investing. Estimates vary, but her net worth, now roughly $10 million, grew significantly after she was elected to Congress. Ciattarelli has pounced on that, accusing her publicly of insider trading; she did indeed trade defense stocks while sitting on the House Armed Services Committee. Sherrill’s response to this accusation should be of little comfort to a DNC wishing to put behind them Hillary’s smug deflection of questions about wiping her private server clean (“you mean with a cloth?”) or Kamala’s “I haven’t been to Europe” debacle. Said Sherrill, “It’s not as if I go sit on the House Armed Services Committee and suddenly, I’m trading Boeing or something.” She was, in fact, fined for a reporting violation (not insider trading). Sherrill appears to be, to put it bluntly, another self-enriching DC “swamp” creature.
With that said, Ciattarelli certainly has some hurdles before him. He is running as a Republican in a state that has not voted Republican for President since 1988. Nor does New Jersey tend to vote for a GOP governor if there is also a Republican in the White House. But he also has some things in his favor. Locally, Murphy is finishing his second term, and not since 1965 has New Jersey given Democrats three gubernatorial terms in a row.
Sherrill has been trying to tap into the undercurrent of TDS I often see manifested in otherwise rational and intelligent people here by linking him to Trump. But how effective is that in 2025? As Ciattarelli has said: “The president has nothing to do with high property taxes or energy prices.” New Jerseyans may accept that. In 2016 and 2020 Donald Trump received 41% of the vote here. Last November that number climbed to 46%. And given the double-whammy of Trump’s successes so far — closing the border, ending wars, record-high stock markets, clamping down on urban crime, etc. — as well as the Democrat Party literally polling the lowest in a generation, it is no wonder that Democrats are looking to the New Jersey race with considerable disquiet.
Another, if anecdotal, bit of encouragement for Ciattarelli is that in my three decades in the Garden State I&#8217;ve noticed New Jerseyans are able to separate local and national politics. As one example from my own town, we had an off-year election in 2023 for four of the eight Town Council seats. Prior to then the make-up was seven Democrats and one Republican. After the election it was three Democrats, five Republicans. A GOP sweep. And this is in a zip code that nevertheless went 68% for Harris just a year later.
As with past elections, Democrats may be too reliant on optimistic polls, which consistently show Sherrill ahead. Even so, there are ominous signs in the numbers. The latest from Quinnipiac puts her at just 50% to Ciattarelli’s 44%. But as I have discussed with fellow conservatives in my town, no pollster ever calls us … or if they do we tend to not engage. It should be noted that a Rutgers-Eagleton poll in October 2024, less than a month before the election, showed Trump could expect just 35% of the Garden State to pull his lever. The actual result was, as stated, 11 points higher.
Barring a Sherrill blow-out, New Jersey is a “no-lose” scenario for the GOP. If Sherrill squeaks to a narrow win, well, it’s a blue state anyway. But if Ciattarelli somehow gets the nod, that would be a harbinger of bad things to come for the Democrats in the midterms. Who knows? For Ciattarelli, who has run for governor twice before, maybe third time’s the charm?
* * *
Brad Schaeffer is a commodities fund manager, author, and columnist whose articles have appeared on the pages of The Wall Street Journal, NY Post, NY Daily News, The Daily Wire, National Review, The Hill, The Federalist, Zerohedge, and other outlets. He is the author of three <a href="https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B07MQJBJSD?ccs_id=55112527-86f6-4c89-b82e-a96d6869abed">books</a>. You can also follow him on <a href="https://bradschaeffer.substack.com/">Substack</a> and <a href="https://x.com/bschaeffer123">X</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.

Mikie Sherrill Campaigns For Governor Of New Jersey Ahead Of November’s Election

Could New Jersey Be A Bellwether Of GOP Fortunes? 

Elections

Energy

governor

New Jersey

Taxes

U.S. Politics

There&#8217;s a <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/14/private-chat-among-young-gop-club-members-00592146">story</a> from POLITICO making the rounds and creating an enormous amount of dyspepsia on the Right. The story is titled, “’I Love Hitler.’ Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat.”
It is questionable whether the actual line “I love Hitler” was said in jest or whether it was said authentically.
All those quotes from the chat have been released by POLITICO. They reported:
<blockquote>Leaders of Young Republican groups throughout the country worried what would happen if their Telegram chat ever got leaked, but they kept typing anyway. They referred to Black people as monkeys and “the watermelon people” and mused about putting their political opponents in gas chambers. They talked about raping their enemies and driving them to suicide and lauded Republicans who they believed support slavery.
William Hendrix, the Kansas Young Republicans’ vice chair, used the words “n&#8211;ga” and “n&#8211;guh,” variations of a racial slur, more than a dozen times in the chat. Bobby Walker, the vice chair of the New York State Young Republicans at the time, referred to rape as “epic.” Peter Giunta, who at the time was chair of the same organization, wrote in a message sent in June that “everyone that votes no is going to the gas chamber.”
Giunta was referring to an upcoming vote on whether he should become chair of the Young Republican National Federation, the GOP’s 15,000-member political organization for Republicans between 18 and 40 years old. “Im going to create some of the greatest physiological torture methods known to man. We only want true believers,” he continued. Two members of the chat responded. </blockquote>
 A lot of this is edgelord-ism. It has existed on the Right, particularly among young right-wingers, for a very long time.
Back in 2015 or 2016, I was speaking at a college campus in California, and some kid came over and started using some Groyper memes in jest. I said to him, “Listen, I understand that you&#8217;re just being edgelord right now. If you actually, authentically think that stuff, you&#8217;re wrong. But second of all, if you put that stuff online, there are social consequences to saying and believing truly terrible things.”
I&#8217;m not talking here about whether we should ban people from Facebook. Obviously, the answer is no. Whether you ban people from YouTube or X, I&#8217;ve argued in favor of the restoration of people&#8217;s accounts on these platforms because they are platforms. They are not publications.
However, there are social consequences to people who say things that you believe are terrible. They don&#8217;t get to come over to dinner at your house. They don&#8217;t get to marry your kids. You don&#8217;t date them.
We all have social lines we draw all the time, and the question is where to draw those lines and how those lines ought to be drawn. There&#8217;s no question that the shutting tight of the Overton Window by the Left means that the explosion of the Overton Window in response has let in an enormous amount of garbage.
That is reality. This sort of language is routinely used now among a segment, not all, not even a majority, but among some fragmented segment of the right-wing ecosystem among young people.
So here is what I hope will represent an honest rubric for dealing with issues like this one.
<ol>
<li>Obviously, it is very cynical for POLITICO to target young GOP group chats while leaving left-wing chats untouched. I would promise you those same left-wing chats exist and are just as bad, if not worse. There are university chats among professors that are just as bad, if not worse.</li>
</ol>
All of that is true.
<ol start="2">
<li>The Right does not have an obligation to go totally insane over such chats. What the Left and the media love to do is to take stuff like this and say to every member of the Republican Party, “You must personally condemn all of this.” The answer should be, “I&#8217;m happy to condemn the crap in there, but why? Why am I responsible for it? I&#8217;m not responsible for that.” You claim that everyone on the Right is responsible for a group of young Republicans who say terrible things in private to one another, that what they did somehow implicates the entire Republican Party. Meanwhile, the attorney general candidate in Virginia publicly says horrible things and that doesn&#8217;t implicate the entire Democratic Party? Zohran Mamdani, who likely will be New York mayor, is openly pro-terrorism, and that doesn&#8217;t implicate the entire Democratic Party?</li>
</ol>
This POLITICO story, which is gaining all sorts of traction, is not comparable to actual people running for high office in Virginia or in New York City or the Democratic Party at high levels engaging with this sort of nonsense.
<ol start="3">
<li>When you&#8217;re asked about somebody saying a bad thing, whether you&#8217;re Right or Left, of course you ought to condemn the bad thing that is being said. I don&#8217;t even understand the logic of not doing that. Are you obligated to defend the bad thing being said, because the person who is questioning you is “on the other side?” Because that&#8217;s precisely how you get to a Left that defends Jay Jones. That&#8217;s how you get there. That&#8217;s how you get to a Left that openly defends Zohran Mamdani.</li>
</ol>
Forgiveness ought to be easily obtained, as I&#8217;ve said.
But — if you want forgiveness, you ought to ask for it. You ought to disassociate from the things that you say, and admit, “I was saying stuff that was dumb. I got caught up in the edgelord moment online.”
You only get out of jail free if you ask to do so. You don&#8217;t get it preemptively. If you say something terrible or you do something terrible and people preemptively forgive you, doesn’t that incentivize you to do more of that thing?
<ol start="4">
<li>Finally, it is not sufficient to publicly proclaim that you&#8217;re not going to condemn these people, say nothing about their comments, and instead just project to the other side. That’s because on a strategic level, this is how your party ends up being taken over by the ambulatory psychotics.</li>
</ol>
With the Left, that&#8217;s what happened. They decided they would not, under any circumstance, condemn their own ambulatory psychotics because those people were part of their coalition, and they couldn&#8217;t do it or they would lose.
You know what ended up happening? The alligator ate them first, not last. They ended up being taken over by the crazy wing. That’s because if you lose your systemic immunity, the crazy tends to be really, really, really infectious. 
 
There&#8217;s this weird idea on the Right that the Left wins because they&#8217;re totally unified and they completely side with one another.
But here’s the central point: The Left is not winning.
I think we on the Right have somehow become depressive, even possibly gotten addicted to the depressive. The Left is not winning.
Donald Trump has been president twice.
Republicans are in control of the Senate.
Republicans are in control of the House.
Republicans are in control of the majority of governors’ mansions.
Republicans are in control of a majority of state legislatures.
The Left is not winning because of their unity. They are being destroyed because they decided that the nutjobs and the radicals in their own party could not be condemned under any circumstances. They decided to feature Ilhan Omar on the cover of magazines and unite around the crazy college protesters, the BLM rioters, and the transgender radicals.
And guess what? They got their asses kicked because of it. Yes, they didn&#8217;t expel people from their party, but moderates walked away. The non-crazy walked away.
This is the dirty little secret of how Donald Trump won the election of 2024. He ran as a moderate. People were moderate and picked him above the unified Left that was siding with and defending and massaging all of the radicals.
This is a very big country with an awful lot of people, and the vast majority of them are not loon bags, and the vast majority of them don&#8217;t like the lunacy.
And we need to be real about the agenda of the people who are continuing to rely on the kindness of the “traditional Republicans” who “don&#8217;t want to attack.”

Menu