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

US-POLITICS-MILITARY-BIDEN

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

Ben Shapiro

Biden Administration

Clemency

Democrats

Joe Biden

New York Times

Opinion

New <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/08/us/politics/biden-aides-election-age.html">reporting</a> reveals an extraordinary isolation campaign by former President Joe Biden&#8217;s closest aides at the end of his term, with staffers screaming at reporters, changing his phone number, and blocking access from panicked Democrats trying to tell him the truth about his failing campaign.
The revelation appears in the recently published <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/754957/2024-by-josh-dawsey-tyler-pager-isaac-arnsdorf/">book</a> by a trio of legacy media reporters, titled &#8220;2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America,&#8221; written by Wall Street Journal reporter Josh Dawsey, New York Times White House correspondent Tyler Pager, and Washington Post reporter Isaac Arnsdorf.
Pager, conducting research for the book, managed to obtain Biden’s cellphone number in March 2025. The former president quickly agreed to an interview despite his aides repeatedly turning down similar requests from Page for several months.
Asked if he regretted dropping out of the presidential race, Biden said in a dispassionate tone, “No, not now. I don’t spend a lot of time on regrets.” He then ended the conversation to board an Amtrak train, Pager <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/08/us/politics/biden-aides-election-age.html">recalled</a> for the Times.
Pager’s brief discussion with Biden reportedly sparked panic among the former president’s top aides. “After the first call,” the authors <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/bidens-team-scolded-reporters-changed-his-number-after-they-called-personal-cellphone-report/">report</a> in the book, “furious Biden aides repeatedly called and texted [Pager].”
“One screamed at me for calling the former president directly. Others texted furiously, trying to figure out how I had obtained Mr. Biden’s phone number,” Pager said.
Although Biden himself initially seemed open to continuing to talk to Pager, the reporter’s calls began to go straight to voicemail.
Within days, Pager’s calls were greeted with a message from Verizon: “The number you dialed has been changed, disconnected, or is no longer in service.”
The Times reporter writes that this incident is reflective of the insularity of Team Biden throughout his doomed presidential campaign.
Pager reports that instead of confronting Biden with the harsh reality after his disastrous debate performance, his inner circle restricted access to him, making it difficult for even longtime allies, such as Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, to connect with the president.
On his way to a fundraiser after the debate, Biden asked his traveling aides aboard Air Force One what people were saying about his performance.
Rather than providing an accurate assessment, they offered what witnesses described as a &#8220;sanitized version&#8221; of the situation.
According to Pager, Biden’s aides never even allowed him to meet with campaign pollsters, instead presenting Biden with overly optimistic outlooks that alarmed campaign staff.
Following the debate, campaign pollsters presented their findings to Biden&#8217;s advisers, and their conclusion was damning: all polling indicated that Biden had no path to victory, and voters were not convinced that he was up for the job.
This assessment enraged Steve Ricchetti, counselor to the former president and chairman of Biden&#8217;s 2020 presidential campaign, who reportedly preferred a sanitized version of events.
“Two days after the presentation, Geoff Garin, one of the pollsters, checked in with Mr. Ricchetti. Mr. Ricchetti lit into him and said the presentation was out of line,” Pager reported. “It was not their job to tell them there was no path to victory. The pollsters, Mr. Ricchetti said, were supposed to provide the path to win.”
Rep. Pete Aguilar, a top House Democrat from California, confronted Ricchetti in a heated call, asking, &#8220;Do you realize how bad it is? Has anyone told the president how bad it is?&#8221;
When Ricchetti insisted that many members of Congress still supported the president, Aguilar pushed back: &#8220;Steve, has anyone walked into the Oval and told him we could lose everything?&#8221; Ricchetti admitted no one had.
According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/08/us/politics/biden-aides-election-age.html">The Times</a>, the situation was so dire that reliable Democratic strongholds, including Virginia, Minnesota, and New Mexico, suddenly became competitive – a devastating development that Biden&#8217;s inner circle concealed from him.
When former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) met privately with Biden at the White House during this crisis period, she grew frustrated by his insistence that polling showed no real change since the debate.
At one point, Biden called his longtime adviser, Mike Donilon, to refute Pelosi&#8217;s claim that polls showed he would lose to Trump. Donilon got on the line and reportedly contradicted Pelosi&#8217;s assessment.
Campaign adviser Adrienne Elrod was so concerned that Biden wasn&#8217;t getting an accurate assessment that she contacted &#8220;Morning Joe&#8221; hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, knowing the president watched their show on MSNBC every morning.
Days before Biden dropped out, Scarborough aired these concerns, saying, &#8220;The anger I hear are the people who are keeping him in a bubble.&#8221;
Even when confronted directly by donors at a Hamptons fundraiser who challenged him on his debate performance, Biden dismissed concerns as &#8220;one bad night&#8221; and vowed to stay in the race. His closest aides brushed off the concerns as typical donor anxiety.
The controversy over Biden&#8217;s isolation mirrors similar concerns that arose during his presidency, when critics frequently questioned whether his staff was shielding him from unscripted interactions with the press and public.
Throughout his term, the White House faced persistent accusations that Biden&#8217;s handlers were deliberately limiting his exposure to mask cognitive decline – allegations his team consistently dismissed as partisan attacks despite mounting video evidence of verbal stumbles and confusion during public appearances.

TOPSHOT-US-VOTE-POLITICS-DEBATE-BIDEN-TRUMP

New Book Reveals Biden’s Inner Circle Took Drastic Steps To Limit Access, Shield Him From The Truth

2024 Election

Biden Campaign

Debate

Elections

Legacy Media

Politics

The New York Times, a former newspaper, recently ran a story with this headline: “Men, Where Have You Gone? Please Come Back.” The sub-headline was: “So many men have retreated from intimacy, hiding behind firewalls, filters and curated personas, dabbling and scrolling. We miss you.”
Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “Oh, Klavan, you smoking hot hunk of hilarity, a joke is a joke, but do you really expect us to believe that that was a headline in the same former newspaper that has spent the last forty years denigrating men and marriage and promoting a sexual culture of such degrading perversion that it could only be intended to cause even a fully operational male to recoil horrified from sexual communion as if he were Ben Affleck in the moment he suddenly realized he had left the really nice Jennifer for the Jennifer with the admittedly spectacular body but with the kind of personality that could make even a fully operational male recoil horrified from sexual communion as if he’d spent the last forty years reading the New York Times?&#8221; And okay, sure, even I’ve forgotten where that sentence began, but the point is, no, I’m not making this up.
This article wondering why men had retreated from intimacy into a world of solitary stimulation utterly devoid of emotional content was written by Rachel Drucker, a woman who spent part of her career working for Playboy and its affiliated hard core porn outlets, enticing men to retreat from intimacy into a world of solitary stimulation utterly devoid of emotional content. She writes (and this is a real quote, I’m still not even making stuff up yet): “I remember when part of heterosexual male culture involved showing up with a woman to signal something — status, success, desirability. Women were once signifiers of value, even to other men. That dynamic has quietly collapsed.”
So — baffled by this mystery — the New York Times did what they usually do in such circumstances: they sent their reporters to find out what men think, by interviewing women.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show">WATCH: The Andrew Klavan Show</a></h3>
For instance, they spoke with Karen Screamy-Hate-Face, President of the Society for Harridans who are Intolerably Loud, or S-H-R-I-L. Ms. Screamy-Hate-Face said, “I can’t for the life of me figure out why I can’t get a date with one of these toxic snakes. I’ve got the pink hat, all the right tattoos and plenty of insight on how to make men be better than they are. What do those bastards want from me? Tenderness?”
The Times also interviewed the holder of the Guinness Book World Record for highest body count, Karen Spikenose, who told them, “Frankly, I think most men are just too sexually insecure. They’re always afraid I’m going to compare them to all the men I slept with yesterday. But really, I’m the sort of girl who usually takes each man separately. It’s more time-consuming, but I feel it makes for a more intimate seven minutes.”
And they interviewed divorce attorney Karen Crotchfangs, who told us, “I just think men don’t know what they really want. They say they want a feminine girl like me who gets all made up for a date and wears pretty dresses and lets them pay for dinner, but then the minute they see my penis they run for the hills. Sometimes without even finishing their drink.”
In the end, however, despite its considerable reportorial power, the New York Times somehow could not solve the mystery of why men no longer feel that women add value to their lives.
Now, part of our job here at the Daily Wire is to bring you the kind of material that outlets like the New York Times simply can’t provide. Like journalism. So we immediately sent our reporters out into the field, and when they didn’t come back from the field but simply went prancing off across the grass picking flowers and weaving garlands of daisies for one another’s heads, we sent out some more reporters to interview a prominent man on why he had retreated from intimacy. Unfortunately, the man just kept sobbing violently and crying out, “What was I thinking? I could have had the nice Jennifer!”
* * *
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>.”
Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. Klavan is the bestselling author of numerous books, including the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The fourth installment, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1613165536?ref_=dbs_m_mng_rwt_calw_thcv_3&amp;storeType=ebooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Woman Underground.</a>” His most recent nonfiction release is “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Cain-Finding-Literature-Darkness/dp/0310368340/?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_w=nMYjR&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_p=bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_r=133-8344803-2786917&amp;pd_rd_wg=7a8J3&amp;pd_rd_r=5791ea0f-6d96-4732-9d6a-3a4e6b348bb5&amp;ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Kingdom of Cain: Finding God in the Literature of Darkness.</a>” (May 2025, Zondervan/HarperCollins). Follow him on X: <a href="https://x.com/andrewklavan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@andrewklavan</a>
The views expressed in this satirical article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Man sitting under the table and using mobile phone.

New York Times Investigates Retreat Of Men By Talking To Women

Andrew Klavan

Gen Z

Humor

Relationships

Satire

Women

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) tried to trash First Lady Melania Trump&#8217;s &#8220;Einstein visa&#8221; — without realizing the New York Times disproved her argument seven years ago.
Melania received an EB-1 visa, or &#8220;Einstein visa,&#8221; in 2001, when she was a model. The visa is meant for immigrants &#8220;with extraordinary ability.&#8221;
&#8220;You&#8217;re supposed to have some sort of significant achievement, like being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize or a Pulitzer, being an Olympic medalist or having sustained other extraordinary abilities and success in sciences, art, education, business, or athletics,&#8221; Crockett said. &#8220;Last time I checked, the first lady had none of those accolades under her belt.&#8221;
&#8220;It doesn&#8217;t take an Einstein to see that the math ain&#8217;t mathing here,&#8221; Crockett added.
Crockett accused Republicans of hypocrisy, as the federal government is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-state-dept-measures-unveiled-how-foreign-students-will-be-screened-for-u-s-entry">reevaluating</a> visa programs.
&#8220;Since we&#8217;re talking about integrity, I&#8217;m confused as to why my Republican colleagues aren&#8217;t talking about the lack of integrity when it comes to the president&#8217;s family&#8217;s visas,&#8221; Crockett said.
But Crockett ignored a New York Times article debunking doubts about Melania justifying the visa.
&#8220;Petitioners for the EB-1, which was created as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, face a two-part test,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/us/melania-trump-einstein-visa.html">Times</a> wrote in 2018. &#8220;The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services first must determine whether a candidate has presented evidence to satisfy three out of 10 <a class="css-yywogo" title="" href="https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-workers/employment-based-immigration-first-preference-eb-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">criteria</a>, such as publishing material in professional publications or other major media, appearing in artistic exhibitions or commanding a high salary.&#8221;
Melania — who had featured in British GQ and Sports Illustrated, among other magazines — satisfied that requirement.
&#8220;Once those are met, the decision comes down to a vague and undefined &#8216;final merits determination&#8217; by the immigration agency,&#8221; the Times continued.
Although they admitted the approval process is inconsistent, the Times&#8217; sources agreed Melania deserved the visa.
&#8220;The notion that you somehow have to be a genius or Einstein is utter fiction,&#8221; Chris Wright, a lawyer based in Los Angeles, told the Times. &#8220;We have succeeded with models no more accomplished than Melania Trump.&#8221;
Even Albert Einstein might have been declined a visa. In one experiment, immigration lawyers examined some of Einstein&#8217;s early work — without knowing it was his — and concluded &#8220;it would be very challenging&#8221; for him to get an EB-1, the Times reported.
Still, the seven-year-old fact check did not stop Crockett from using Melania to criticize Republicans.
&#8220;Nevertheless, what Republicans are doing with this reconciliation process, the travel bans and revoking visas, jeopardizes our national security,&#8221; Crockett said.

Delivering On Government Efficiency Subcommittee Holds Hearing On Foreign Aid

Jasmine Crockett Tries To Trash Melania. The New York Times Says She’s Wrong.

Congress

Jasmine Crockett

Melania Trump

The New York Times is under fire for what many are calling a bizarre hit piece on Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.
The piece, by reporter Caroline Kitchener, calls Duffy the “MTV Reality Star in Trump’s Cabinet Who Wants You to Have More Kids.” Duffy appeared on “The Real World: Boston” in 1997, and “Road Rules: Allstars” the following year, where he met his future wife, Rachel Campos.
Duffy and Campos wed in 1999 and went on to have nine children. Duffy’s political career began in 2002, when he was named District Attorney of Ashland County, Wisconsin. He served in the House of Representatives from 2011-2019. During his first campaign, he told Politico that his time as a reality TV star was “a lifetime ago,” calling it “Six months, 15 years ago.”
Still, to Kitchener, Duffy is still the “sex-hungry 25-year-old on MTV’s “The Real World,” now using his family for clout, and letting his personal convictions about family influence his policy.
Kitchener, who chronicles family issues in the “Trump era” for the Times, is a former abortion reporter for the Washington Post and received the Pulitzer Prize in 2023 for work on the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
She <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/23/us/politics/sean-duffy-reality-television.html">claims</a> the Duffys “positioned themselves as the poster family for the administration’s agenda to raise the birthrate and promote a conservative view of traditional family values.”
Her greatest accusation is that Duffy’s “policies and perspectives are shaped by the conviction that women should be having more children.”
“Early in his tenure at the Transportation Department, Mr. Duffy signed a controversial memo pledging to prioritize transportation funding for regions with higher birthrates and marriage rates — an approach that Democratic senators have called &#8216;deeply frightening&#8217; and &#8216;disturbingly dystopian.&#8217;”
Duffy dismissed Kitchener’s characterization, saying, “With all the serious issues facing our country, the New York Times decided to dispatch a former abortion correspondent (cosplaying now as a “family” expert) for a hit piece on me and the Trump administration.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
With all the serious issues facing our country, the New York Times decided to dispatch a former abortion correspondent (cosplaying now as a “family” expert) for a hit piece on me and the Trump administration.
NYT reporter <a href="https://twitter.com/CAKitchener?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@CAKitchener</a> is genuinely disturbed that I’m happily… <a href="https://t.co/wrNTMFoK42" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pic.twitter.com/wrNTMFoK42</a>
— Secretary Sean Duffy (@SecDuffy) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecDuffy/status/1937124269374292211?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">June 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
Kitchener “ is genuinely disturbed that I’m happily married, have nine kids, and—brace yourself—didn’t abort any of them,” Duffy added.
“Among the hard-hitting questions she harassed my team with: did I consider aborting one of my daughters, what color plaid my siblings and I wore as children, whether I drive a minivan, and bizarre fact-checks on an old reality show. Pulitzer stuff, truly.”
“I’m laser focused on making transportation great again,” Duffy added. “While they obsess over my beautiful family, I’m working for yours.”
Others were quick to criticize Kitchener and her piece.
“The former abortion reporter for the Washington Post is VERY mad that Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has a big family,&#8221; Federalist CEO Sean Davis wrote on X. &#8220;Apparently she sent a deranged list of questions to the family demanding to know why they didn’t abort their oldest daughter. What a psycho!”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The former abortion reporter for the Washington Post is VERY mad that Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has a big family. Apparently she sent a deranged list of questions to the family demanding to know why they didn’t abort their oldest daughter. What a psycho! <a href="https://t.co/LfrTL9x0Vo" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pic.twitter.com/LfrTL9x0Vo</a>
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) <a href="https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1937140020030116227?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">June 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
“Nothing demonstrates the plight of unhappy liberal women quite like this article trying to scandalize Sean Duffy for… *checks notes* settling down and having a big family,&#8221; White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Nothing demonstrates the plight of unhappy liberal women quite like this article trying to scandalize Sean Duffy for… *checks notes* settling down and having a big family <a href="https://t.co/ag7q7sbJAZ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pic.twitter.com/ag7q7sbJAZ</a>
— Abigail Jackson (@ATJackson47) <a href="https://twitter.com/ATJackson47/status/1937144235368874407?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">June 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
Duffy’s daughter, Evita Alonso-Duffy, said &#8220;it’s clear&#8221; that Kitchener &#8220;hates family, given how much the size of ours disturbs her.&#8221;
&#8220;The truth is simple,&#8221; Alonso-Duffy added. &#8220;We’re not a prop, a brand, or some act. We’re a real, loving, faithful, joyful family — and<a href="https://x.com/CAKitchener" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> @CAKitchener</a> is bitter and a creep.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The NYT just published a hit piece on my family, accusing my dad of using us as political props for his career. The writer, Caroline Kitchener, is an abortion reporter who now claims to be a “family” journalist. But it’s clear she hates family, given how much the size of ours… <a href="https://t.co/AkiicQXodp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pic.twitter.com/AkiicQXodp</a>
— Evita Duffy-Alfonso (@evitaduffy_1) <a href="https://twitter.com/evitaduffy_1/status/1937119749269311827?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">June 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate, said, “The Duffys represent everything the pro-abort side despises: faith, marriage, &amp; openness to life. The NYT is attacking them not because they’re wrong, but because they’re winning.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The Duffys represent everything the pro-abort side despises: faith, marriage, &amp; openness to life
Married 26 years, <a href="https://twitter.com/SeanDuffyWI?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@SeanDuffyWI</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/RCamposDuffy?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@RCamposDuffy</a> are raising nine beautiful children with love &amp; joy
The NYT is attacking them not because they’re wrong, but because they’re winning <a href="https://t.co/l4I6ZexMoh" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://t.co/l4I6ZexMoh</a>
— Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilaGraceRose/status/1937184162219467052?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">June 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Announces Plan To Boost Air Traffic Controller Workforce

New York Times Abortion Reporter Slammed For ‘Deranged’ Piece On Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy

Abortion

Family Values

Sean Duffy

A news reporter at Los Angeles&#8217; ABC News affiliate, speaking over video footage of riots where leftists were burning cars to protest Trump administration immigration policies, described the situation to viewers as “just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn.”
The ABC 7 reporter made the comments while declaring, “It could turn very volatile if you move law enforcement in there and turn what is just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn into a massive confrontation and altercation between officers and demonstrators.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="LIVE: Immigration protest underway in LA" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HH7DPreBh1g?start=9822&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Meanwhile, on Monday, after a weekend of rioting, the usual suspects in the media either offered their support for illegal immigrants or attacked the Trump administration for getting involved in the incendiary situation. The Los Angeles Times published an article titled, “<a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-08/rights-explainer-immigration-crackdown">Feds vow to continue immigration enforcement ‘every day in L.A.’ Here are your rights</a>.”
“Businesses should ensure that employees know their rights and that they should refrain from engaging with ICE officials, according to the National Employment Law Project,” the Times wrote.
“Trump Jumps at the Chance for a Confrontation in California Over Immigration,” The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/08/us/politics/trump-california-immigration.html">blared</a> in response to the riots, adding, “The situation has all the elements that the president seeks: a showdown with a top political rival in a deep blue state over an issue core to his agenda.”
&#8220;In bypassing the authority of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a Democrat, to call in the National Guard to quell protests in the Los Angeles area over his administration’s efforts to deport more migrants, Mr. Trump is now pushing the boundaries of presidential authority and stoking criticism that he is inflaming the situation for political gain,” the Times continued.
“The easiest way to understand this is not that Los Angeles has suddenly turned into a metropolis riddled with criminal immigrants who are holding it hostage,” the Washington Post echoed. “The easiest way to understand this is that the president and his administration have been looking to California as they have been looking to crush any center of power that he views as adversarial. &#8230; the administration by all appearances seeks to make an example of California and of any leaders who oppose its efforts.”

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-IMMIGRATION

‘Just A Bunch Of People Having Fun Watching Cars Burn’: ABC News On L.A. Anti-ICE Riots

ABC News

Donald Trump

Illegal Immigration

Los Angeles

Los Angeles Times

Media

Riots

U.S.

Washington Post

The New York Times on Friday admitted that President Donald Trump &#8220;holds the levers of power&#8221; in his battle with Harvard University, which the Times added has &#8220;no way out.&#8221;
Trump is taking on Harvard over the Ivy League&#8217;s DEI (&#8220;diversity, equity, and inclusion&#8221;) policies, its <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elise-stefanik-says-harvard-siding-with-those-who-hate-jewish-students-in-scathing-letter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">handling of antisemitism on campus</a>, and biased hiring and admissions policies. The Trump administration is working to block billions of federal dollars to Harvard, and more recently halted the university&#8217;s ability to enroll international students, though that&#8217;s been temporarily blocked by a judge.
NYT correspondent Michael Schmidt, who painted Trump negatively, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/23/us/politics/trump-harvard-international-students.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">admitted</a> that the federal government holds the levers of power, since Harvard takes so much money from the feds. Notably, Trump is cracking down on the school because they won&#8217;t adjust policies the Right views as discriminatory and anti-American.
&#8220;Trump has stripped extensive federal funding from Harvard,&#8221; Schmidt explained. &#8220;Let’s say a judge gives back all of that money for this year. Half of the university’s research budget comes from the federal government. Where is Harvard going to get the money in the year after that, and the year after that? If you’re a researcher, do you want to be doing research at a school where your funding is in question?&#8221;
&#8220;Harvard finds itself in this impossible position,&#8221; the reporter continued. &#8220;The federal government has more levers to use against an institution like Harvard than certainly I had appreciated. If you are persona non grata with Trump, he’s got you by the lapels in a way that is extraordinary. And Harvard is feeling it.&#8221;
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Schmidt said that privately, Harvard is feeling the heat. &#8220;Harvard officials have privately determined they are in a major, major, major crisis with very few, if any, good off ramps,&#8221; he said.
Last year, Harvard President Claudine Gay resigned following congressional questioning over her handling of antisemitism on campus. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) blasted Harvard, and Gay specifically, for allowing the targeting of Jewish students.
“[Gay] failed to stand up for Jewish students on campus who have been facing antisemitic attacks, who have been facing physical assault,&#8221; Stefanik <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elise-stefanik-harvard-president-claudine-gays-resignation-was-long-overdue" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in January 2024. &#8220;We’ve seen that footage. We’ve heard that directly from students on campus. We’ve also heard faculty concerns about her tenure, and her position, and her lack of academic integrity. But it really goes back to protecting Jewish students. And, frankly, when it comes to Harvard, the only time that Harvard has pled for academic freedom or freedom of speech was when it comes to the genocide of the Jewish people. That is inherently unfit for a person to be president of a university.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elise-stefanik-says-harvard-siding-with-those-who-hate-jewish-students-in-scathing-letter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Elise Stefanik Says Harvard Siding With ‘Those Who Hate Jewish Students’ In Scathing Letter</a>

President Trump Meets With El Salvador President Nayib Bukele At The White House

NYT: Harvard Is Screwed, Trump Has All The Power

Harvard University

A graphics reporter who was working for Bloomberg News and formerly worked at The New York Times was arrested when anti-Israel activists seized control of Columbia University’s Butler Library earlier this month.
Jason Kao, who graduated from Columbia in 2022, was charged with criminal trespass and given a desk appearance ticket as a result of his actions on May 7. Eighty-one activists were arrested.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Bloomberg reporter arrested during anti-Israel protesters’ takeover of Columbia University library — and is no longer employed by outlet <a href="https://t.co/flQD0VqrwR">https://t.co/flQD0VqrwR</a> <a href="https://t.co/VaavsjR8qp">pic.twitter.com/VaavsjR8qp</a>
— New York Post (@nypost) <a href="https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1924659428155892000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“During the unrest, rioters injured two, passed out pamphlets endorsing Hamas&#8217;s violence, vandalized and damaged the library, and renamed the building after Basel al-Araj, a Palestinian terrorist killed in a 2017 shootout with the Israel Defense Forces,” the Washington Free Beacon, which <a href="https://freebeacon.com/campus/bloomberg-journalist-among-anti-israel-radicals-arrested-for-storming-columbia-library/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">broke the news</a> of Kao’s arrest, noted, adding, “Kao&#8217;s personal <a href="https://jasonkao.net/">website</a> is exclusively devoted to negative coverage of Israel&#8217;s war in Gaza.
Bloomberg News told the Free Beacon that Kao is no longer employed at the outlet.
Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), the campus coalition of leftists, released a <a href="https://x.com/ColumbiaBDS/status/1920199061950329089">video</a> in which they stated, “BREAKING: THE BASEL AL-ARAJ POPULAR UNIVERSITY HAS JUST LAUNCHED, RECLAIMING BUTLER LIBRARY FOR THE PEOPLE &#8230; Over 100 people have just flooded Columbia University for Palestine.”
The group issued a <a href="https://x.com/ColumbiaBDS/status/1920211153214476471">list of demands</a>, including: “Full financial divestment from zionist occupation, apartheid and genocide. Academic boycott of all complicit institutions, including the cancellation of the Tel Aviv Global Center. Cops and ICE off our campus. &#8230; Amnesty for all students, staff, faculty and workers targeted by Columbia University’s discipline.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
We reject an imperialist economy of knowledge. We evoke the legacy of liberation and the philosophy of direct action of Basel al-Araj. 
OUR DEMANDS: <a href="https://t.co/gwKVnowrXu">pic.twitter.com/gwKVnowrXu</a>
&mdash; CU Apartheid Divest (CUAD) (@ColumbiaBDS) <a href="https://twitter.com/ColumbiaBDS/status/1920211153214476471?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Last year, the Columbia University Apartheid Divest coalition publicly acknowledged a deeper truth: they are fighting to “eradicate” Western civilization. They joined with the university’s Bengali Student Association to post a statement on Instagram, as Campus Reform <a href="https://www.campusreform.org/article/columbia-university-anti-israel-group-says-fighting-total-eradication-western-civilization/26077" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
“We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization,” they stated. “We stand in full solidarity with every movement for liberation in the Global South. Our Intifada is an internationalist one—we are fighting for nothing less than the liberation of all people. We reject every genocidal, eugenicist regime that seeks to undermine the personhood of the colonized.”
”As the fascism ingrained in the American consciousness becomes ever more explicit and irrefutable, we seek community and instruction from militants in the Global South, who have been on the frontlines in the fight against tyranny and domination which undergird the imperialist world order,” they continued.

Pro-Palestine Protesters Take Over Columbia University’s Butler Library

Bloomberg Reporter Arrested With Anti-Israel Group That Seized Columbia Library

anti-Israel

Bloomberg News

Columbia University

The Met Gala , which means nothing to most of us, is very important to the cultural glitterati, the people who make culture.
The Met Gala is the Marie Antoinette of the modern American landscape. Every year, a bunch of very rich and very famous people get enormous attention for wearing some of the most bizarre and expensive garbage imaginable while the rest of the country tries to pay its bills.
And then we are told that those rich people are brave and groundbreaking for doing so.
Ironically, the theme of this year&#8217;s Met Gala was “Superfine: Tailoring Black Style.” Clearly, when this year’s event was originally considered, people thought Kamala Harris was going to be president of the United States. It was designed as a celebration party for the nation&#8217;s second black president, Kamala Harris.  
And then she lost.
And so now we are in this weird nether region in which the Left continues to whine that Kamala Harris should have won the election, even though she lost.
The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/05/style/met-gala-2025-black-dandy-politics.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>:
<blockquote>Last October, when the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute announced its next fashion show, “Superfine: Tailoring Black Style,” the political landscape looked very different.
Kamala Harris, the first female vice president and the first Black woman ever to top a major-party ticket, was in the final weeks of her campaign for the White House. The show, the culmination of five years of work by Andrew Bolton, the Costume Institute’s curator in charge, to diversify the department’s holdings and shows in the wake of the racial reckoning brought about by George Floyd’s murder, seemed long overdue.</blockquote>
Right. There was nothing that was longer overdue than a fashion show about black fashion. That is why George Floyd died, so the Met Gala could have extraordinarily rich and famous people wear bizarre outfits worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Clearly, that was necessary.
The Times continued:
<blockquote>On Monday, however, when it finally opens to the starry guests at its signature gala, the splashiest party of the year, it will do so in a very different world. One in which the federal government has functionally declared war on diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as programming related to race — especially in cultural institutions.</blockquote>
The theme of this year&#8217;s Met Gala was based on an <a href="https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/superfine-tailoring-black-style" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exhibit</a> at the Met Museum that:
<blockquote>explores the importance of style to the formation of Black identities in the Atlantic diaspora, particularly in the United States and Europe. Through a presentation of garments and accessories, paintings, photographs, decorative arts, and more, from the 18th century to today, the exhibition interprets the concept of dandyism as both an aesthetic and a strategy that allowed for new social and political possibilities.</blockquote>
The apparent goal was to recreate the mood of outfits that were worn by black people in resistance to white supremacy. The Metropolitan Museum wrote:
<blockquote>Together, these characteristics demonstrate how one’s self-presentation is a mode of distinction and resistance—within a society impacted by race, gender, class, and sexuality. Together, these characteristics demonstrate how one&#8217;s self-presentation is a mode of distinction and resistance within a society impacted by race, gender, class, and sexuality.</blockquote>
You might notice that this is not the sartorial splendor for black people of the past; in fact, if you watch movies and shows that are made about the early 20th century, there was a form of black fashion and it was actually quite cool.
But that is not what this was, because the Gala had to be used to prop up the ideology that suggests that being black is equivalent to being gay, is equivalent to being transgender, is equivalent to being transgressive in virtually all of its forms.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2193-member-exclusive?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
This Gala was race-directed. The Left is going to have to confront a backlash because the American people are tired of DEI; it was one of the main reasons why Democrats lost in the last election cycle. Americans are extraordinarily tired of thinking tribally along racial lines.
So many of the DEI traps about race are Catch-22s; on the one hand, there can be a suggestion that if a historically black area has a lot of investment and white people drive up the real estate prices, this is “gentrification” and “wrecking the neighborhood.” But if white people move out of that area, then that is called “white flight.”
The same thing holds true when it comes to things such as fashion. If white people pay tribute to black people through fashion, then that is cultural appropriation. And if they don&#8217;t, then that is neglecting the impact of black fashion on America and the West.
Let&#8217;s put it this way: If the future of the Democratic Party is re-embracing DEI through an effete fashionista sensibility, good luck to the Democrats. This is precisely the kind of crap that most Americans are ready to end. This is not a reversion to normality. It&#8217;s a reversion to Bizarre World.
The class differentiation at the Met Gala is what sets it apart, but the attempt to cut the class differentiation by reference to race is a giant failure.
The Democrats wonder why blue-collar voters of every stripe moved away from them? It’s because the actual morality that drives the Democratic Party is a snooty elitism that sneers at people who don&#8217;t have the same aesthetic tastes that they do.
I don&#8217;t have the same aesthetic taste as many Americans; I listen to classical music; I&#8217;m an Orthodox Jew, and my aesthetic and cultural tastes might not necessarily be the same as a blue-collar worker from Wisconsin. But that doesn&#8217;t mean that my aesthetic and cultural tastes are better than the blue-collar workers from Wisconsin.
What reeks from all of the pictures of the people at the Gala is a disdain for normal Americans.
And that is why Donald Trump is president.

The 2025 Met Gala Celebrating “Superfine: Tailoring Black Style” – Arrivals

The Ongoing Insanity Of The Met Gala

Blacks

Celebrities

Coastal Elites

Manhattan

New York City

White Supremacy

You may have noticed that most of the headlines right now revolve around President Trump and the Republicans. It&#8217;s almost as though the Democrats don&#8217;t exist.
That’s because they don&#8217;t. They have almost lost the will to resist, as you have Bernie Sanders and AOC taking private jets to large venues.
Democrats are struggling for what their message ought to be, so they have unleashed a new term.
It is “Dark Woke,” which is going to go about as well as “Dark Brandon” did.
Just a few years ago, at a NASCAR race, people started chanting “F*** Joe Biden” and a woman who was covering that race then suggested the crowd was actually chanting, “Let&#8217;s go, Brandon!”
Republicans started using the slogan “Let&#8217;s go Brandon” to imply “F*** Joe Biden.” And then the Biden administration, trying to seize the language back, put out memes of old Joe Biden with laser eyes calling him “Dark Brandon.” Or they put up memes of him with his sunglasses, grinning, and they called it “dark.”
It didn&#8217;t go well because he then physically died in the middle of the race and dropped out. In fact, it went very poorly.
So now they&#8217;re trying “dark” again. They think that just by adding the word “dark” to things, that makes it cool.
Dumb.
They&#8217;re obviously trying to copy the Elon Musk memery of “Dark MAGA.” And so now they have “dark woke.”
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2184-member-exclusive?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/style/dark-woke-democrats-jasmine-crockett-trump.html">According</a> to The New York Times, “There was a time last summer when the Democratic Party was cool.”
That was a really, really short period of time. (There was a point in time when I was significantly closer to weighing 150 pounds. It was a moment, and then it went away.)
The Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/style/dark-woke-democrats-jasmine-crockett-trump.html">continued</a>:
<blockquote>Kamala Harris had just stepped in as the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in the waning days of Brat summer. She went on the popular podcast “Call Her Daddy.” Tim Walz’s outdoorsy drip led to a Chappell Roan-inspired camo trucker hat. The mems were flowing, and the party’s mood was high.</blockquote>
You&#8217;ll recall that even by the end of Brat summer, it was pretty much over for Kamala Harris. The “Call Her Daddy” appearance was a giant failure and cost her a bunch of money.
Tim Walz was never a bro. Nobody ever saw Tim Walz as a bro, unless the bros were hanging out at a high school musical production using jazz hands.
But now, apparently, Democrats are in search of a new memery. The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/style/dark-woke-democrats-jasmine-crockett-trump.html">writes</a>:
<blockquote>As liberals try to get their groove back, some party insiders say Democratic politicians have been encouraged to embrace a new form of combative rhetoric aimed at winning back voters who have responded to President Trump’s no-holds-barred version of politics. It’s an attempt to step outside the bounds of the political correctness that Republicans have accused Democrats of establishing. And it requires being crass but discerning, rude but only to a point. Online, it has a name: “Dark woke.”
“Republicans have essentially put Democrats in a respectability prison,” said Bhavik Lathia, a communications consultant and former digital director for the Wisconsin Democratic Party. “There is an extreme imbalance in strategy that allows Republicans to say stuff that really grabs voters’ attention, where we’re stuck saying boring pablum. I see this as a strategic shift within Democratic messaging — I’m a big fan of ‘dark woke.’”</blockquote>
What exactly is “dark woke?”
The Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/style/dark-woke-democrats-jasmine-crockett-trump.html">again</a>:
<blockquote>During a meeting of the House Oversight Committee last May, Representative Jasmine Crockett, Democrat of Texas, found herself in a spat with Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, after Ms. Greene made a jibe about “fake eyelashes” that the chair, Representative James Comer, Republican of Kentucky, declined to prosecute under the committee’s rules on decorum.
“Mr. Chair, a point of order,” Ms. Crockett said. “I’m just curious, just to better understand your ruling. If someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody’s bleach blonde bad built butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?”
Ms. Crockett’s moment became a meme. It was printed on T-shirts. It got her an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel. And now, Democratic strategists say, it has become a perfect example of “dark woke.”</blockquote>
Democrats are very much in love with this sort of stuff.
And it ain’t gonna get them out of their morass.

Bernie Sanders And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Hold “Fighting Oligarchy” Rally In L.A.

The ‘Dark Woke’ Rises — And Trips Over Itself

Republicans

Woke Culture

On January 24, 2017, just four days after Donald Trump was inaugurated for his first term in office, the FBI sent two agents to the White House to interrogate Trump&#8217;s national security adviser, Michael Flynn. It wasn&#8217;t billed as an interrogation at the time; they convinced Flynn that it was just an opportunity for a friendly chat. But in retrospect, their goal could not have been any more clear: They wanted to manufacture a pretext to secure Flynn&#8217;s termination. Getting rid of Flynn would enable the FBI to continue to conduct a series of fraudulent investigations into the Trump administration. It would insulate the bureau from any kind of large-scale reform. And it would help the FBI spread the narrative that the Trump administration was secretly working for Russia in some way.
Therefore, the FBI asked Flynn a few questions in the White House. Then they convinced Mike Pence that Flynn had lied to them — even though to this day, no one can explain what exactly Flynn said, because the conversation wasn&#8217;t recorded. In any event, Pence took the FBI&#8217;s word for it. Michael Flynn was fired after less than a month. His tenure as national security advisor was the shortest in American history.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1580-the-coordinated-hit-job-on-pete-hegseth-must-be-exposed-and-defeated-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
What happened to Michael Flynn is worth recalling this week because it was not a one-off. This wasn&#8217;t a random act of sabotage by some unelected, shadowy officials. It was, in fact, standard operating procedure. It is the default response of a bureaucracy that feels threatened. They will come up with a smear campaign, launder it through sympathetic media outlets, and ultimately pressure the decision-makers to get rid of their target. Eight years ago, this is precisely how they got rid of Michael Flynn. And right now, it&#8217;s how they&#8217;re trying to destroy Donald Trump&#8217;s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth.
From the moment Hegseth was nominated, there was a concerted effort to smear him as an alcoholic who was too inexperienced to do the job. It was almost like the Brett Kavanaugh hearings all over again. Anonymous accusations began surfacing every other day. We were even told, if you can believe it, that Pete Hegseth once celebrated St. Patrick&#8217;s Day, live on the air on &#8220;Fox &amp; Friends.&#8221; That was supposed to be profoundly scandalous. In reality, the point of that fake scandal was never to convince anyone of anything. Instead, the point was to send a message to the incoming Trump administration. The message was that the most powerful forces in Washington did not want Pete Hegseth to be confirmed. They wanted Donald Trump to pull his nomination and select someone more conventional — someone who would be more responsive to the needs of defense contractors, for example.
But Trump didn&#8217;t abandon Hegseth&#8217;s nomination. He decided, after what happened in his first term, to trust his own instincts and stand by his selection. The result has been predictable. Just a few months into Donald Trump&#8217;s term, Hegseth&#8217;s enemies have begun yet another smear campaign. And like the campaign to oust Michael Flynn, it&#8217;s not meant to withstand any kind of scrutiny. The point is to move quickly, create panic, and ultimately pressure the White House to fire Hegseth.
It&#8217;s not exactly a subtle operation. Yesterday morning, NPR came out with this story, which directly states the outcome they want to achieve: 
<blockquote>Exclusive: The White House is looking to replace Pete Hegseth as defense secretary.</blockquote>
According to NPR:
<blockquote>The White House has begun the process of looking for a new leader at the Pentagon to replace Pete Hegseth, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly. This comes as Hegseth is again mired in controversy over sharing military operational details in a group chat.</blockquote>
So here we have an unnamed source — just one person, who&#8217;s described only as a &#8220;U.S. official&#8221; — stating that the White House is planning to fire Pete Hegseth. And based on this one nameless official, who supposedly serves somewhere in the United States government, the narrative has been set. Pretty much every outlet picked up this story: They&#8217;re all trying to convey the perception that Hegseth&#8217;s removal is a foregone conclusion.
Meanwhile, there&#8217;s a steady drip of new information that&#8217;s supposedly even more damning than the last hit piece. Tune into CNN, and they&#8217;ll tell you that Hegseth needs to be removed because of a new Signal chat that&#8217;s suddenly been uncovered. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="004 Ex Hegseth aide" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NWXmVI-Ge94?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Before we go into the specifics, I need to make it clear that I was a fan of the Hegseth pick when it was initially announced. But after seeing this unrelenting smear campaign that started before he was confirmed and hasn&#8217;t let up since, I am now an even bigger fan of the pick. It&#8217;s clear that the establishment sees this guy as a threat to their agenda. He&#8217;s in a position to do extraordinary damage to their interests. And it seems like he&#8217;s already doing a lot of damage — which is why he needs to stay in his position at all costs.
And as you saw, Donald Trump doesn&#8217;t need to be told that. He understands exactly what CNN and the rest of the corporate press are doing. The coverage is breathless and fast-moving because you&#8217;re not supposed to scrutinize it. If you think about it for five seconds, you&#8217;ll realize that — as was the case with Michael Flynn — the hysteria makes absolutely no sense.
To recap: The case against Pete Hegseth is that the national security adviser, Mike Waltz, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-national-security-story?author=Ben+Shapiro&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=The+National+Security+Story" target="_blank" rel="noopener">mistakenly added</a> Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic, to a classified group chat about a U.S. military strike. Even if this is true — even if we pretend for a moment that a rabidly anti-Trump journalist, with extensive ties to the deep state was somehow &#8220;accidentally&#8221; added to a highly sensitive group chat — it&#8217;s still not remotely clear why Pete Hegseth should be fired as a result. He&#8217;s not the one who made the mistake.
The next alleged scandal, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/us/politics/hegseth-signal-chat.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> by The New York Times, concerns a Signal chat that involved Hegseth and a dozen other people, including his lawyer, his wife Jennifer and his brother Phil, who works at the Pentagon. The chat, which was called &#8220;Defense Team Huddle,&#8221; also reportedly included Dan Caldwell and Darin Selnick, two former Hegseth advisers who were just fired after a leak investigation. Supposedly, during this chat, Hegseth again discussed war plans involving Yemen, although no one&#8217;s sure exactly what was communicated.
Now, under the circumstances, it would be reasonable to wonder if Dan Caldwell or Darin Selnick might have had a role in placing this story in the New York Times. After all, they were just fired from the Pentagon for leaking. They were both members of this group chat. And now they&#8217;re publicly attacking Pete Hegseth&#8217;s Defense Department, and implying that the Pentagon wants to pursue a reckless war with Iran.
As it relates to unelected operatives in the Pentagon, that may be true. I&#8217;m not in a position to dispute that claim. But anyone who&#8217;s paying attention to what Pete Hegseth is doing, both in public and in private, knows that he&#8217;s going to do everything he can to prevent that outcome.
Here&#8217;s what <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QTwlqbkbos" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hegseth told</a> Fox News earlier this month:
<blockquote>[Trump] is dead serious that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. &#8230; He&#8217;s said that for 20 years, he&#8217;s been consistent, that is clear. He&#8217;s dead serious that he wants it done at the negotiating table, he wants it done peacefully, and that&#8217;s why he&#8217;s going straight to these talks, he&#8217;s set that deadline. &#8230; But he&#8217;s also dead serious that if we can&#8217;t figure this out at the negotiating table then there are other options, to include my department to ensure that Iran never has a nuclear bomb.</blockquote>
In other words, his primary objective is not to attack Iran. It&#8217;s a peaceful, diplomatic resolution.
A couple of days later, The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/us/politics/trump-israel-iran-nuclear.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">confirmed</a> that, in private, Hegseth had personally helped avert a military strike on Iran that could&#8217;ve spiraled into World War III:
<blockquote>Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions. &#8230; Inside the Trump administration, some officials were becoming skeptical of the Israeli plan. In a meeting this month — one of several discussions about the Israeli plan — Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, presented a new intelligence assessment that said the buildup of American weaponry could potentially spark a wider conflict with Iran that the United States did not want. A range of officials echoed Ms. Gabbard’s concerns in the various meetings. Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth; and Vice President JD Vance all voiced doubts about the attack</blockquote>
That report was published on April 16. It states, very clearly, that Hegseth had helped stop a military attack on Iran, which could&#8217;ve easily devolved into all-out warfare.
Four days later, on April 20, the Times published <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/20/us/politics/hegseth-yemen-attack-second-signal-chat.html">a story</a> outlining Hegseth&#8217;s second Signal chat, which is supposedly grounds for his termination. In other words, we get a new scandal, right after Hegseth enrages the defense contractors that would&#8217;ve made many millions of dollars, if not more, from an all-out conflict with Iran. And then, hot on the heels of the new scandal, we get an unverified, barely-sourced report about how the White House is looking to replace Hegseth.
At this point, I can only assume that&#8217;s another fake smear. It would be a disastrous mistake for Trump to cave to the pressure and offer up his Defense Secretary as a sacrifice. It&#8217;s the kind of mistake that could derail his entire presidency. And it would be a major victory for establishment Washington, which is becoming increasingly desperate by the day.
You can see the signs everywhere. Here&#8217;s one of them: On Monday, four more Democrat lawmakers made a <a href="https://thepostmillennial.com/four-dems-denied-meeting-with-kilmar-abrego-garcia-after-flying-to-el-salvador#google_vignette" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pilgrimage</a> to El Salvador to visit that MS-13 gangbanger, following the visit by Senator Chris Van Hollen that we discussed last week. The lawmakers were Robert Garcia of California, Maxwell Frost of Florida, Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, and Maxine Dexter of Oregon. These politicians, like the rest of the Washington establishment, are pulling out all the stops to defend their open borders, globalist agenda. Making a martyr out of Abrego Garcia, and a scapegoat out of Hegseth, is all part of that plan.
To be clear, I see no indication that this is going to work. It doesn&#8217;t look like this MS-13 gangbanger is going to be returned to the United States, any more than it looks like Pete Hegseth is about to be replaced by another Raytheon board member. The idea that the White House is planning to cave to the demands of establishment Washington, at the moment, seems like yet another fabrication from the corporate press. For the sake of the world, which wouldn&#8217;t exactly benefit from nuclear armageddon, it should remain a fabrication and nothing more.

Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth Meets With El Salvador Minister Of National Defense Rene Merino Monroy At The Pentagon

The Coordinated Hit Job On Pete Hegseth Must Be Exposed And Defeated

Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Leftists

Matt Walsh

Michael Flynn

Pete Hegseth

President Trump

The Swamp

Washington D.C.

Larry David can’t stand the fact that Bill Maher didn’t hate Donald Trump after they had dinner together.
The 77-year-old “Curb Your Enthusiasm” creator wrote an opinion piece attacking Maher for being open-minded, repeating the tired trope throughout the piece that Trump is Hitler.
The satirical <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/opinion/larry-david-hitler-dinner.html">essay</a> based on Maher’s remarks, titled “My Dinner With Adolf,” was published by The New York Times on Monday. 
“I had been a vocal critic of his on the radio from the beginning, pretty much predicting everything he was going to do on the road to dictatorship,” David wrote, pretending to tell the story from Maher’s perspective. “But eventually I concluded that hate gets us nowhere. I knew I couldn’t change his views, but we need to talk to the other side.”
David went on, “I joked that I was surprised to see him in a tan suit because if he wore that out, it would be perceived as un-Führer-like. That amused him to no end, and I realized I’d never seen him laugh before. Suddenly he seemed so human. Here I was, prepared to meet Hitler, the one I’d seen and heard — the public Hitler. But this private Hitler was a completely different animal. And oddly enough, this one seemed more authentic, like this was the real Hitler. The whole thing had my head spinning.”
“‘I must say, mein Führer, I’m so thankful I came. Although we disagree on many issues, it doesn’t mean that we have to hate each other.’ And with that, I gave him a Nazi salute and walked out into the night,” David’s essay says.
Maher, who has been openly critical of Trump, had a private dinner with the president earlier this month. He later admitted to enjoying himself and feeling better about the president on his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxlopbcfXpQ">show</a>, &#8220;Real Time with Bill Maher.&#8221;
“And I know as I say that, millions of liberal sphincters just tightened. ‘Oh, my God, Bill, you gonna say something nice about him?’ What I’m gonna do is report exactly what happened. You decide what you think about it, and if that’s not enough pure Trump hate for you, I don’t give a f***,” Maher said of the meeting. 
“I don’t remember exactly what we were talking about, but it must have been something with the 2020 election because I know he used the word ‘lost,’ and I distinctly remember saying, ‘Wow, I never thought I’d hear you say that,’” Maher added. “He didn’t get mad. He’s much more self-aware than he lets on in public.”
“Everything I’ve ever not liked about him was — I swear to God — absent, at least on this night with this guy,” the “Real Time” host said. “He mostly steered the conversation to, ‘What do you think about this?’ I know: your mind is blown. So is mine.”
“A crazy person doesn’t live in the White House,” he added. “A person who plays a crazy person on TV a lot lives there, which I know is f***ed up. It’s just not as f***ed up as I thought it was.”

David and Maher

Larry David Whines About Bill Maher Giving Donald Trump A Chance With Trite ‘Hitler’ Comparison

Larry David Whines About Bill Maher Giving Donald Trump A Chance With Trite 'Hitler' Comparison

Adolf Hitler

Bill Maher

Larry David

Menu