Many people have begun to worry about the state of American politics. They feel President Trump’s approval ratings have now dropped to 37% of the number of people in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, while the Democrat Party is being taken over by communists so that the country is careening helplessly into a fatal catastrophe that will leave us eating our pets for breakfast before we wage a Civil War that reduces the continent to a pool of blood and ashes. And, of course, all that’s true. But it’s no reason to panic. Well, it’s kind of a reason to panic. But if you just take a breath and then zoom in for a really close look at the situation, I think you’ll see a reason to panic really close, which hopefully will make it look like something else.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/andrew-klavan-show-ep-1290?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-974735 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1024x171.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
On the Republican side, the problem is the unpopular war in Iran. President Trump says he is holding off on hurling deadly missiles at Iran because he has managed to negotiate a peace deal with Iran’s supreme leader even though the leader is a Jew-hating Islamist whose slogan is &#8220;Death to America.&#8221; Iran’s supreme leader, however, says he hasn’t been negotiating with anyone, and the confused Trump is actually negotiating with a Democrat candidate for Congress, who is also a Jew-hating Islamist whose slogan is &#8220;Death to America,&#8221; so the mistake is understandable. Overall, the Iranians have sworn to continue to resist Trump’s attacks until the arrival of the apocalyptic Twelfth Imam, who is also a Democrat candidate for Congress. This means that Trump will have to continue hurling deadly missiles, except that we’re running out of deadly missiles so he may have to hurl something else deadly like Kamala Harris’s memoir or lettuce.
But while our munitions are running low, our military is trying to reform. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth was administering testosterone tests to the warriors until one of them lost his temper, beat the tester senseless, opened fire on his fellow soldiers with a machine gun, then sexually assaulted a female lieutenant while singing &#8220;God Bless the USA&#8221; at the top of his lungs, which fortunately, turned out to be the correct answer on the testosterone test.
With Trump distracted by the war, he hasn’t had a lot of free time in which to pressure Senate Majority Leader John Thune to, like, make a law or something, so Thune has been forced to find other ways to pass the time. To entertain himself, Thune has invented a new version of Charades in which the answer is always “A potted plant.” The way the game is played, Senate Majority Leader John Thune just stands there like a potted plant, and the other senators keep guessing that he’s Senate Majority Leader John Thune, until Thune reveals that, no, he’s actually a potted plant, whereupon everyone has a good laugh and goes on summer break.
With the Republicans in disarray, the Democrats have felt free to nominate congressional candidates who believe in socialism. The candidates are careful to explain that socialism is not the same as communism because in communism, millions of people starve to death while a leader with a bushy mustache shoots all his colleagues in the back of the head, whereas in socialism, there’s generally no bushy mustache.
The new Democrat candidates say their real platform is economic equality and hating Jews, and they’re all out of economic equality.
The new Democrats have found some common cause with former Right-wing figures like Tucker Carlson. Carlson has been subtly supporting the communists by interviewing such popular pro-communist celebrities as Satan. Tucker says that many Americans don’t realize that Satan actually loves Christians, especially with a little mustard and a smattering of relish, and he says Satan should not be silenced just because certain Zionist influencers are calling him Prince of Darkness, or because Prince of Darkness happens to be his official title. Tucker then let out that creepy high-pitched laugh of his, burst into flames and fell through the floor in a cloud of sulfurous smoke, increasing his audience by several million.
So I think it&#8217;s clear we can all avoid panicking about the state of American politics, if we just zoom in too close to see it properly, and then take heroin.

Michigan Senate Candidate Abdul El-Sayed Holds Rally In Detroit With Sen. Bernie Sanders And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Hammer, Sickle, And Jihad: The Future Of The Democrat Party

Abdul El-Sayed

Andrew Klavan

Communism

Democrats

Donald Trump

Iran

John Thune

Pete Hegseth

Republicans

satanic

Socialism

Tucker Carlson

Grocery prices are too high; we all know it; we all get it.
They&#8217;re up about 35% since 2019 — first because of COVID-19, then because of Joe Biden&#8217;s inflationary policies. Inflation has slowed; grocery prices are up about 2.7% for the year right now.
But let’s set the record straight: Grocery prices are never coming back down to where they were in 2019. The only way for them to do that would be for us to experience a serious, actual deflationary episode, which generally means an economic depression.
Food inflation started to level out in 2023 while Joe Biden was still president, and has continued at a relatively tepid pace since. Yet the impression persists that the Trump administration isn&#8217;t doing enough to address inflation, in part because of the tariffs. Tariffs don&#8217;t target consumer prices; they target fairness in the production process and a level playing field with foreign countries
But there’s a far worse and more serious problem in the United States: Unrealistic, inflated utopian expectations.
Many young people have a completely broken set of expectations about life right now.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-show-ep-2479?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
One student wrote, “A burrito shouldn&#8217;t cost 20 bucks.” Andrew Kolvet of TPUSA commented, “Yeah, a lot of this is a hangover from Covid and Biden-era inflation, but the lived experience is the same: It just feels like basic things cost too much.”
I agree things cost more than they should. But there is only one way in the United States of America in 2026 for a burrito to cost $20: You went to an expensive restaurant.
A burrito at Chipotle probably tops out at about $13. A top-shelf burrito option at Taco Bell runs $5.99 plus tax.
Let’s pretend that you&#8217;re a poor young student, as I once was. Or pretend you&#8217;re a dude who is just starting his work life and wants upward mobility, as I once did.
This is what you do: If you want a burrito, you head to the supermarket. Here are today&#8217;s prices via Instacart: You buy a package of 10 tortillas for roughly $4. You also grab a can of refried beans for $2.50, then grab some cheese, salsa, maybe an avocado, and nuke it in the microwave.
Boom, you&#8217;re talking about a pretty good burrito for less than $2, one-tenth of the price that student was talking about.
So what the hell are we even talking about here?
Unfortunately, this has become the mode for a lot of young people: “Why can&#8217;t I afford what my parents could afford when they were my age?”
Spoiler alert about groceries: You can. And even in areas for housing where deregulation has been the rule, you still can.
In fact, today you have more restaurant options, your food takes up a smaller share of your disposable income, and it is probably significantly better than it was back in 1950, when your grandparents were consuming, on average, about 1,000 fewer calories per day than you do now.
Food expenditure as a share of family disposable income in the United States has been flat at well under 10% since the mid-1990s. If you go back to when your parents were doing this, it was roughly 13% to 15%. But we&#8217;re constantly being told that we can&#8217;t even afford food, which is a wild exaggeration.
We are, if anything, a very overweight country, and all of this is yet another form of black-pilling.
Things can get better. There are things we can do to get government out of this business, and we should. But insane, outsized expectations of reality wreck politics. That’s because if both parties are promising you something that can never be achieved via politics, you will inevitably be annoyed. You will swivel over to the other side, and then they&#8217;ll fail, and you&#8217;ll swivel back to the first side.
Here is the deal: In the United States of America, we are fatter and richer, and we have nicer houses and nicer cars than in the past, and the food we eat is much, much better than it was for our parents, in general.
There are secondary distortions that follow from that. “You know what? We need to go back to the way it was. Our food system is broken. We need to go totally domestic. We&#8217;re talking about chicken coops in the backyard.”
I think our ancestors would have laughed at us trying to cosplay the 1850s, when it turns out that if we had lived in the 1850s, we all would have been miserable and smelly, crapping in a hole in the backyard.
Life was not great back then. In fact, if you take people from poorer countries today and you bring them to the United States, they&#8217;re not complaining about the status of our food supply.
There&#8217;s a woman we know from the Philippines. She&#8217;s wonderful, and she just brought her mom over from there. The family grew up in a shack in the Philippines with no actual floor, along with 10 siblings. When her mom came over, she walked into an American supermarket, and it blew her mind.
Why?
Because for most of the world, the luxury that we experience on a daily basis here in the United States is utterly unthinkable.
Our system is not broken. It is working really, really, really efficiently. We have one of the most efficient food production and delivery systems in the history of the world — and the cheapest.
According to the Foundation for Economic Education, the price of eggs declined 96% between 1919 and 2019. That means an unskilled laborer today can buy 24 times as many eggs as an unskilled laborer could a century ago for the same amount of work.
Does this mean everything is perfectly ideal? No. We could probably reduce food prices by 5% to 10%. All you&#8217;d have to do is eliminate tariffs and ramp up American oil production.
There is so much black-pilling, so much doom-scrolling, so much “America is terrible. Everything&#8217;s awful. No one can afford anything.”
None of this is to claim that everything is ideal.
But there&#8217;s no such thing as ideal. Everything is comparative.
Donald Trump versus Kamala Harris. Trump is far better.
America versus other countries. America is far better.
America&#8217;s living situation now versus your parents’ living situation. Comparatively, America is far better now.
Economics is a study in trade-offs. If you&#8217;re on the Right and you spend all day complaining about the production side — “What if all of our labor was both domestic and unionized and we got rid of technology? And what if all of our food was produced in Iowa and was totally organic?” — then you don&#8217;t get to complain about the prices being too high. All of your inputs just doubled.
If you want prices to go down, end the tariffs, ramp up market-based incentives for innovation, and break up useless unions. Prices will go down.
There&#8217;s one kind of silly critique that I&#8217;ve heard online. “We need to stop being distracted by foreign wars. It&#8217;s the foreign wars that are causing the food inflation.”
No, it isn&#8217;t. The war in Iran has had basically no impact on food prices in the U.S.
Here&#8217;s the food inflation percentage increase between 2016 and 2026: 2023: 2.7; 2024: 2.5; 2025: 3.1; 2026: 3.0.
That is not a gigantic bump based on the war in Iran.
If you actually want the prices to go up, you should leave Iran in charge of the Strait of Hormuz so it can keep throttling up or throttling down our prices at will, based on oil shocks.
Losing wars to failed dictatorships seeking nuclear weapons is not a brilliant trade strategy.
But put all that aside and go back to the larger point: The Right is doom-pilling; it is black-pilling, and right now it is having an impact.
Not everything in America does, in fact, suck. Things are quite good by any historical standard — much better than if Kamala Harris had been president.
That may not be a winning message in 2026, but I can tell you what a losing message looks like: “America totally sucks under Trump, and if you elect more Republicans, it will surely continue to suck. What we need is a Tucker Carlson third party. What we need is a common-good conservatism third party that totally changes everything that&#8217;s been done. Elect Democrats. Split the GOP vote. Then it&#8217;ll get better.”
This demoralization is what the black-pillers are doing right now.
Don’t buy into it.

IMG_5698

The Black Pill Trap

Ben Shapiro

Economics

Food prices

Inflation

Iran war

Opinion

Strait of Hormuz

Trump Administration

For more than a decade, women have gone to the police seeking justice for alleged crimes committed by Andrew Tate. For more than a decade, the criminal justice system failed them.
As Andrew Tate&#8217;s fame rose, much of the media failed alongside it. Instead of exposing him and scrutinizing the evidence against him, many chose to amplify him — using him to generate outrage, attention, and profit.
Andrew Tate spent years telling the world exactly who he was. They refused to listen. They refused to investigate the evidence staring them in the face. In some cases, they profited from amplifying him. Take him at his <a href="https://x.com/TheMilkBarTV/status/1885133636158226501">word</a>:
<blockquote>I exploit a broken society. Broken society suits me to the ground. I use it to my advantage. It&#8217;s how I make money with webcam girls. It&#8217;s how I have multiple girlfriends. I get away with a bunch of sh*t I shouldn&#8217;t get away with.</blockquote>
After Tucker Carlson&#8217;s high-profile departure from Fox News, he launched his new independent venture, the Tucker Carlson Network. For his first major interview, he chose Andrew Tate.
<a href="https://x.com/TheMilkBarTV/status/2078998815416385936?s=20">Behind-the-scenes</a> footage from their July 2023 meeting showed Carlson arriving at the Tate brothers&#8217; compound in Romania. He greeted Andrew Tate, embraced him warmly, spluttering, “this is like”, and, lost for words, let out his trademark chuckle — completely starstruck. Tate, feigning humility, replied, &#8220;You&#8217;re the famous one, bro.&#8221;
Without the context, you&#8217;d have no idea that, less than three weeks earlier, Tate had been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/world/europe/andrew-tate-romania.html">indicted</a> on charges of rape, human trafficking, and forming an organized criminal group.
Carlson <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/politics/heres-what-you-missed-4-bizarre-moments-from-tucker-carlson-and-accused-human-trafficker-andrew-tates-150-minute-interview/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">asked</a> Tate, &#8220;You&#8217;re not accused of pandering, pimping, or forcing women to have sex with anybody?&#8221;
Tate replied, &#8220;No.&#8221;
He was. Carlson offered no correction. No pushback.
Tate told Carlson that the basis of the human trafficking charges was simple:
<blockquote>Their justification for this is that girls do TikTok. Some girls I know who they found who say they&#8217;re not victims, have TikTok accounts.</blockquote>
The indictment tells a very different story.
Five women gave <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66581218">statements</a> against the Tate brothers in the first Romanian case, four of whom are listed as injured parties. Prosecutors allege the women were &#8220;sexually exploited&#8221; and &#8220;forced to produce pornographic content,&#8221; including webcam work and OnlyFans.
Carlson then asked whether Tate was being accused of &#8220;using violence?&#8221;
Tate replied, “They&#8217;re accusing me of using the &#8216;Loverboy&#8217; method. Coercing them by being nice.”
He immediately flashed a wide Cheshire cat-like grin. 
Prosecutors accuse the Tate brothers of subjecting women to &#8220;physical violence and psychological coercion resulting from intimidation, surveillance, and control, with the aim of sexual exploitation.&#8221;
Carlson rushed to endorse Tate’s narrative:
<blockquote>That&#8217;s not actually human trafficking. I don&#8217;t care what you call it — you weren&#8217;t buying, even accused of buying or selling anyone.</blockquote>
And on and on the interview went.
Either Carlson had failed to do the most basic research and hadn&#8217;t read the publicly available charges, or worse, he had read them, knew Tate was misleading him, and chose not to correct the falsehoods that would ultimately reach an estimated 50 million viewers across multiple platforms. 
Neither possibility reflects well on Carlson.
Following Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens traveled to Romania with her husband, George Farmer, a longtime friend of Andrew Tate, to <a href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/1QxqBZC1qm2MbcXe8OyBzU">interview</a> him for her then-Daily Wire show. 
Owens repeatedly claimed to have read the Romanian indictment. Yet, as with Tucker Carlson&#8217;s interview, the claims made throughout her interview bore little resemblance to the indictment itself. This time, however, Owens did much of the heavy lifting herself.
One of the interview&#8217;s central claims was that Tate had abandoned the webcam business around 2013. Throughout the interview, Tate and Owens invoked &#8220;10 years ago&#8221; like a mantra, with Owens arguing it would be unfair to judge someone by who they were a decade earlier. 
Just months earlier, Owens herself said on her show that when she first met Tate through her husband in 2019, her Romanian assistant warned her Tate was operating as a pimp in Romania. By Owens&#8217; own account, she already knew years before the interview that Tate&#8217;s webcam business hadn&#8217;t ended in 2013. 
Tate himself repeatedly boasted on podcasts as late as 2021 that his webcam business was still operating. In many respects, the Romanian prosecutors&#8217; star witness is Andrew Tate himself.
But Tate told Candace&#8217;s audience, &#8220;Everything from these old videos, old clips, my webcam company, things that happened 10 years ago, have nothing to do with this case,” to which Owens immediately responded: &#8220;Correct.&#8221;
Again, the indictment tells a very different story. 
But the magnum opus had come first. On June 12, 2023 — eight days before Romanian prosecutors indicted him, and more than two months into his house arrest — Patrick Bet-David gave Tate more than five hours to deliver a marathon of untested claims. He signed hats for a giveaway competition before Bet-David presented him with a Bible and a Quran. The interview concluded with Tate promoting Bet-David&#8217;s Minnect platform, where fans could pay for personalized messages from a man then under criminal investigation for rape and human trafficking.
But Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Patrick Bet-David didn&#8217;t create Andrew Tate; they inherited him. 
The institutional failure began years earlier in Britain. 
In 2014 and 2015, three women went to police alleging that Andrew Tate had raped and assaulted them. Tate was arrested and questioned.
The alleged victims then heard little from police until, two years later, when Tate appeared as a contestant on the U.K.&#8217;s “Big Brother” on Channel 5.
Tate, rather presciently, declared during the show, &#8220;I&#8217;m going to become the most hated man in the world.&#8221;
One of the alleged victims shared her account in the Channel 4 documentary &#8220;I Am Andrew Tate&#8221;:
<blockquote>The police said they&#8217;re trying to get him out, but they&#8217;re having some pushback from the “Big Brother” team because “he&#8217;s good TV.&#8221;</blockquote>
Tate didn&#8217;t remain on the program for long. Producers were alerted to a video showing him whipping a woman with a belt, and he was removed from the show.
Tate immediately claimed the footage depicted consensual &#8220;sex games&#8221; filmed years earlier, in 2012. The woman in the video publicly backed his account.
The story dominated the British tabloids, from The Sun and Daily Star to the <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/andrew-tate-launching-new-big-8197131">Mirror</a> and Daily Mail. No one has given her full legal name.
Years later, Romanian prosecutors would identify that same woman as an alleged victim and charge Andrew Tate with trafficking her into pornography while she was still a minor. Romanian authorities confirmed her date of birth as September 25, 1997. If Tate&#8217;s <a href="https://x.com/i/status/1816156649029263629">claim</a> that the footage was filmed in 2012 is true, she would have been just 14 or 15 years old. 
The age of consent in the U.K. is 16. The age of consent for pornography is 18.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1146399" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/a7a9b0e0-ffe7-492e-9e07-ad70734a0565.jpeg" alt="" width="1194" height="1686" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/a7a9b0e0-ffe7-492e-9e07-ad70734a0565.jpeg 1194w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/a7a9b0e0-ffe7-492e-9e07-ad70734a0565-212x300.jpeg 212w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/a7a9b0e0-ffe7-492e-9e07-ad70734a0565-408x576.jpeg 408w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/a7a9b0e0-ffe7-492e-9e07-ad70734a0565-768x1084.jpeg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/a7a9b0e0-ffe7-492e-9e07-ad70734a0565-1088x1536.jpeg 1088w" sizes=" (max-width: 1194px) 100vw, 1194px" /></div>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1146407" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/62de4f1a-21b6-4370-90fc-64fce984ded4.jpeg" alt="" width="1071" height="609" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/62de4f1a-21b6-4370-90fc-64fce984ded4.jpeg 1071w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/62de4f1a-21b6-4370-90fc-64fce984ded4-300x171.jpeg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/62de4f1a-21b6-4370-90fc-64fce984ded4-1013x576.jpeg 1013w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/62de4f1a-21b6-4370-90fc-64fce984ded4-768x437.jpeg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1071px) 100vw, 1071px" /></div>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1146409" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/1b8845c6-ad99-4f3d-8205-eea39cbc019b.jpeg" alt="" width="1320" height="1734" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/1b8845c6-ad99-4f3d-8205-eea39cbc019b.jpeg 1320w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/1b8845c6-ad99-4f3d-8205-eea39cbc019b-228x300.jpeg 228w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/1b8845c6-ad99-4f3d-8205-eea39cbc019b-438x576.jpeg 438w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/1b8845c6-ad99-4f3d-8205-eea39cbc019b-768x1009.jpeg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/07/1b8845c6-ad99-4f3d-8205-eea39cbc019b-1169x1536.jpeg 1169w" sizes=" (max-width: 1320px) 100vw, 1320px" /></div>
So how did Britain&#8217;s media — and the police — fail to properly scrutinize Tate&#8217;s relationship with the girl in that video? How did nobody seriously investigate whether she had been groomed as a legal child into Tate&#8217;s webcam operation? 
The same Crown Prosecution Service that failed countless victims of grooming gangs also declined to prosecute Andrew Tate. Around this time, in 2017, Tate fled to Romania, openly citing what he described as the country&#8217;s more relaxed approach to rape allegations: 
<blockquote>When people say why do you live in Romania? And I explain my five reasons. One of them is the MeToo era. They go “oh but you’re a rapist.” I say no I’m not a f*cking rapist. But I like the idea of being able to do what I want. I like being free.</blockquote>
Four women are now pursuing Andrew Tate through the U.K. civil courts, three of whom first reported him to police in 2014 and 2015. Meanwhile, Hertfordshire Constabulary has reopened its criminal investigation into those rape and sexual assault allegations after concerns were raised about how the original investigation had been handled.
Today, the Tate brothers face ongoing criminal proceedings in Romania and are separately contesting extradition to the United Kingdom. Across both jurisdictions, the cases involve 35 alleged victims. The allegations include sex trafficking, rape, offenses relating to indecent images of a child, and extreme pornography.
Andrew Tate&#8217;s adopted moniker is King Cobra. But he more closely resembles a coral snake.
Most dangerous animals try to conceal the fact they&#8217;re a threat. The coral snake does the opposite. It advertises its danger with vivid, unmistakable bands. It doesn&#8217;t hide its venom; it advertises it so brazenly that people begin to assume the warning must be an exaggeration.  
Or, as one Channel 5 executive reportedly put it more than a decade ago, &#8220;He&#8217;s good TV.&#8221;
The media dismissed the &#8220;Top G&#8221; — the self-styled &#8220;King of Toxic Masculinity&#8221; — as more bark than bite.
They were wrong.

UFC 313: Pereira v Ankalaev

How Andrew Tate Hid In Plain Sight

Andrew Tate

Big Brother

Candace Owens

DW Opinion

George Farmer

Patrick Bet-David

There&#8217;s an <a href="https://www.facebook.com/TomCottonAR/videos/the-alliance-between-marxists-and-islamists-is-taking-over-the-democrat-party-no/1617106106672082/">emerging alliance</a> in American politics between the far Left and radical Islam. The only tangible thing that Marxists and Islamists have in common is their hatred for Western society. Liberalism, capitalism, and Judeo-Christian values run contrary to both groups. 
Of course, the values of Islamic society are, in practice, more offensive to the Left-wing vision than those of the West. Marxists value socioeconomic equity above all else. There is no metric by which Islam is remotely conducive to this. In traditional Western society, there are different cultural expectations for men and women. In Islamic society women are treated like property. In Western society there is a mobile meritocracy (even Marx did not deny this). In Islamic society there is a rigid aristocracy. Most notably, Western society lends itself to representative government while Islamic society does not.
Yet the Left views Islam as a natural ally in its fight against Western society. The reasons for this are manifold: naivete, delusions of grandeur, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/weekend-plans-with-gad-saad">suicidal empathy</a>. Most likely, it’s as simple as the West being the currently established order, while Islam (for the time being) comes from the fringe. Everything looks harmless on the fringe.
But this delusional self-sabotage is nothing new. We saw this before in pre-revolutionary Iran.
In the late 1970s, Iran’s communist Tudeh Party joined forces with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in his rebellion against the Shah. Both groups felt that the Shah was oppressive and wanted change. They worked together to overthrow him and install Khomeini in his place. Once Khomeini consolidated power around himself, he outlawed the Tudeh party and executed the Marxists en masse. In 1988, he issued a fatwa executing thousands of Iranian leftists, including those already imprisoned.
A common adage often applied here is, “When people tell you who they are, believe them.” This is good advice for many of the masses of mindless activists on the ground, but in the case of intellectual thought leaders, it is arrogance more than naivete that drives this mistake. 
Tudeh Secretary General Nureddin Kianuri said in a 1979 <a href="https://www.merip.org/1980/03/interview-with-tudehs-kianuri/">interview</a> that socialism in Iran “cannot have a Muslim content but will be achieved through the cooperation of Muslim forces.” By his own admission, he believed that he could use Islamism as a controlled weapon against the West and then simply turn it off when he was done with it. Nureddin Kianuri was arrested by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1983 and never saw freedom again.
Of course, the Marxists of today will never learn from the mistakes of the Marxists of the past. If they were capable of such a thing, they would not be Marxists in the first place.
Still, the lesson is an important one as coalition-building becomes necessary in the United States. You cannot control fundamentalist ideologies. The Marxists believed they could point jihadism at the Shah like a loaded gun. It wasn’t a gun. It was a plague. And once unleashed, it did not discriminate in who it destroyed.
When you are angry with the establishment, it can be tempting to look for support wherever you can find it. This phenomenon is not localized to the Red-Green alliance. It rears its head in every political movement that finds itself compromising with radicalism to achieve political goals.
Another group that can stand to take notes is the Left-wing establishment. The likes of Senator Chuck Schumer seem to believe that kowtowing to the socialists within his party will keep him in power. At its core, socialism is incompatible with the traditional Democratic Party. Democratic elites think they can accommodate it anyway and simply direct its radical destructionism toward their enemies.
There is no appeasing this group. First they came for the Republicans; next they’ll come for you, Chuck. You’ll be lucky if they even wait that long. It’s all the same to them. Of course, the Schumers of the world won&#8217;t wise up to this anytime soon. If they were capable of such a thing, the Democratic Socialists of America never would have made it this far in the party.
The Marxists believe they can use the Islamists just like the Democrats believed they could use the Marxists. They were wrong. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. 
In the conservative movement, we face a similar crossroads. The growing influence of radical influencers, especially among young Republicans, shares commonalities with the socialist takeover of the Democratic Party. We mustn’t make Democrats&#8217; mistake.
That is why there is no point in tiptoeing around conflict with the likes of Tucker Carlson. A great many on our side of the aisle have cautioned against direct conflict with them, especially as influencers such as Megyn Kelly and Piers Morgan become louder opponents of the conservative movement. We’re frequently told not to &#8220;alienate&#8221; these people. We should reject these calls.
If they end up voting the way we do, that’s great. But we cannot give an inch to ideologies that are incompatible with our values. Carlson’s anti-capitalist rhetoric, rampant antisemitism, and suggestion of a class revolution demonstrate where his values lie. If we legitimize him, even as a &#8220;calculated move” against our political adversaries, it will inevitably destroy us.
Whether it was arrogance or naivete that drove the Iranian leftists into the arms of the Ayatollah is ultimately irrelevant. We cannot afford either in the conservative movement. We must see our enemies for who they are. 
***
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

GettyImages-84535813

History Already Told Us How This Radical Alliance Ends

Chuck Schumer

Democratic Party

Islamists

Upstream

A CNN host said the (not-so) quiet part out loud in suggesting that Josh Shapiro “reads too Jewish” for the Democratic nomination.
The panel, hosted by Elex Michaelson, included a conversation with Eric Messersmith about Senator Jon Ossoff’s potential in the 2028 presidential race.
Earlier in the panel, Michaelson gave the usual dismissive description of the antisemitism epidemic in the Democratic party: “Some of the fringes of the DSA, not everybody in the DSA, are certainly pretty close to antisemitism, if not antisemitism.” Sure, Elex. And some of the fringes of the Spanish Inquisition didn’t love Jews either.
Rather than counter that the antisemites would not be allowed to bully the rest of the party, Michaelson <a href="https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/tsiem/date/2026-06-30/segment/01">responded</a>, “As Jew, some people read a little more Jewish than others. And Jon Ossoff may not read as Jewish as Josh Shapiro does, for whatever that&#8217;s worth.”
Mr. Michaelson, a Jew himself, may be right, but his analysis ought to raise concerns that he’s standing on the wrong side.
Shapiro was a serious contender for Kamala Harris’s vice president, who was ultimately passed over for Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. By any metric, Shapiro dwarfs Walz in eloquence, political acumen, and general intelligence. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to see what the Harris campaign didn’t like about him.
I wonder, if antisemitism is confined to the fringe as Michaelson claims, why should Jon Ossoff “reading less Jewish” meaningfully increase his odds?
Rather than exorcise the virulent antisemitism from their movement, the establishment has adopted a strategy of appeasement. The question is no longer “Why would it be offensive to nominate a Jew?” it’s “Who’s the least Jewish Jew we can nominate?”
Ladies and gentlemen, the tolerant Left.
Amidst instances like this one, it can be appealing for the fence-sitter to decry “extremism on both sides.” It is true that influencers Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly have embraced antisemitism wholeheartedly and make full-time jobs out of pushing the envelope when it comes to anti-Israel sentiment.
But there are several key differences between the Left-wing problem and the Right-wing one. The antisemitic right-wing influencers seem far more numerous than they actually are. <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/702440/israelis-no-longer-ahead-americans-middle-east-sympathies.aspx">Recent polling</a> still shows strong support for Israel and the Jewish people within the Republican party, and the opposite amongst Democrats.
This is also reflected by elected officials in both parties. While the ranks of the Democrats are crawling with the likes of AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Zohran Mamdani, their Right-wing counterparts are few and far between. The closest thing is perhaps Representative Thomas Massie, who has an unsavory habit of crying “AIPAC” whenever things don’t go his way. Mr. Massie was primaried even as an incumbent in deep-red Kentucky.
Simply put, even if there is an equivalency between Left and Right-wing commentators when it comes to antisemitism, that equivalency is not reflective of the parties. The antisemitism of the Right is still a largely online phenomenon relative to its sweeping, observable influence on the Left.
After all, in the same week that Tucker Carlson left the Republican Party, multiple Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates unseated longstanding establishment Democrats in the New York primary races. Republicans rejected Massie, but Democrats embraced the DSA. Enough said.
None of this is to dismiss the gravity of the far Right’s antisemitism problem. In recent years, sympathies towards extremism have become far more mainstream than they once were. J.D. Vance’s reluctance to condemn Tucker Carlson, for example, is legitimate cause for concern.
But still, to any objective analyst, there can be no comparison between Vance and the festering antisemitism in the Democratic Party.
The Democrats may nominate Jon Ossoff, but it will have to be because he distanced himself from Judaism, not because they distanced themselves from antisemitism. That’s not political pragmatism — it’s moral surrender.

Harvard University Anti-Israel Camp

Antisemitism Is Not A Fringe Position In The Democratic Party

antisemitism

Jewish

John Ossoff

As we approach the 250th anniversary of the founding of our country, there are two forces that wish to wreck America stem to stern, and seek to destroy it: The DSA Left and the Woke Right.
And they are coming together.
The things that matter most to the United States and Americans are under assault. Core principles: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and private property. These things are under assault. Also, the very idea of America being an amazing place, a place that is good and great. The idea of American peace through strength.
All of these things are currently under assault from the Left.
Of course, the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, is eating the Democratic Party wholesale. These are not normal Democrats who are worried about tax rates or entitlement programs. They truly despise the country, and they are full-scale socialists.
What the DSA is doing all over the country is not fun and games; it has consequences. The Democratic Party is on the verge of taking over not just the House in the midterm elections, but also the Senate.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-show-ep-2458?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
In the Senate races, in North Carolina, Democrats are up; in Ohio, it&#8217;s a dead heat. In Maine, a dead heat. In Texas, a dead heat. A dead heat in Alaska. In Iowa, a dead heat. That&#8217;s six seats. If Democrats were to win four, they would take control of the Senate. If they win six, they would have 53 seats. Statistician Nate Silver says there&#8217;s about an 80 to 90% shot Democrats take the House and there&#8217;s a 40% shot they take the Senate.
And remember, increasingly, these are not establishment Democrats. These are not John Fetterman, moderate Democrats. These are Democrats who are in thrall to the DSA. They understand which way the winds are blowing and they&#8217;re moving in the direction of those winds.
So what would happen if the Democrats win? We should keep this in mind because this is the backdrop to Tucker Carlson announcing that he wants to start a third party, which, by the way, is nonsense.
What would happen if Democrats were to win? You need to understand the stakes, to understand the game that Tucker is playing, which is a very dangerous game.
The prime example is judicial nominees. The Supreme Court makes decisions that affect all of us on a wide level.
You can either have people in positions of power who are going to do things like strike down Roe v. Wade, curb the administrative state, or ensure the checks and balances of the Constitution, or you can have a bunch of leftists who greenlight every Left-wing policy.
Justice Clarence Thomas is currently 78. Justice Samuel Alito is 76. Unless either one of them or both retire in the next couple of months, and if Democrats win the Senate, you are likely to see them replaced at some point by a Left-leaning member of the Supreme Court.
If you get two justices who shift from Right to Left, or from originalist to the “living Constitution” crew, you end up with a majority on the Supreme Court in favor of every radical social, fiscal, and foreign policy that the Democrats could ever imagine.
That’s a full-scale disaster area.
That’s why the Senate is crucial.
Democrats are going to start stacking up the district courts. They&#8217;re going to start moving those district courts in the direction of Left-wing social policy. If they were to gain control of the Senate, they would move to impeach President Trump. There&#8217;s an outside shot they could even get a conviction in a Senate split between a Democratic majority and maybe some rogue Republican senators.
They will stymie any effort to fund our military, to restock Patriot missiles, to build the new kind of military we need to actually challenge our enemies in the world.
That all happens if the Democrats win the Senate. This is very, very serious stuff.
That sets it up for 2028. Because if Democrats control the Senate and the House in 2026, they are one step away from having a trifecta in 2028.
It’s true that Republicans have an uphill battle in 2026. We all know this; it&#8217;s an off-year election. This is normal.
What&#8217;s exacerbating that, other than the obvious fact of the president&#8217;s unpopularity, is a group of people purportedly on the Right who are openly saying they want the Republicans to lose.
Tucker Carlson is doing this. This is Tucker&#8217;s entire game. Tucker Carlson wants the Republicans to lose, because what he wants is a party that takes the place of the Republican Party, that mirrors all the presumptions of the Woke Left, except for trans issues.
Tucker Carlson truly dislikes the country. There&#8217;s no way to consistently watch his show and believe otherwise. He literally hosted an arms dealer from Russia to talk about the evils of America.
Carlson does not actually like any of the things that classically have made America awesome. He does not like free markets; you&#8217;ll recall him praising feudalism over free markets. He has praised pretty much every jihadi group he can imagine or pretended they don&#8217;t exist. He has said that Iran is actually the wondrous force in the region, and Carlson&#8217;s unending, lavish praise for Vladimir Putin is laughable at this point.
But here&#8217;s the actual story. Carlson is discussing launching a third party. This is the schtick.
You can see why he&#8217;s doing this; his friends are getting kicked out of the government. People like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Joe Kent, and Thomas Massie.
In an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review this week, he said, “I do know what really matters is war and finance. Where does the money come from? Where does it go and who gets killed? And on those questions, the parties are in lockstep solidarity with each other.”
That is a lie. It is not true. If you think that there&#8217;s no distinction between Democrats and Republicans on how taxing works, where the money comes from, how markets work, how foreign policy ought to work, if you think that they&#8217;re the same, it&#8217;s because you&#8217;re stupid or lying.
I don&#8217;t think Tucker is stupid. I think he&#8217;s lying. He said:
<blockquote>That&#8217;s not a democracy. That&#8217;s a one-party state posing as a democracy and it needs to be broken. And there&#8217;s going to be a third party, and I&#8217;m going to do everything I can to bring that about. And that&#8217;s the lesson of the last two and a half months to me. If you vote for Trump and you still wind up in a regime change war &#8230; then we need options, or else let&#8217;s just give up and be ruled by the most unscrupulous people. And I&#8217;m just too young to accept that. We need a third party. I&#8217;m going to help build a third party.</blockquote>
Then he segued into his National Socialist spiel: “I mean, if you make $60,000 a year, you&#8217;re degraded, your life expectancy has gone down, and the promise of your children&#8217;s lives is likely gone.”
That is not true. Upward mobility in the United States remains available.
He says “no one seems to care,” which is, of course, Tucker&#8217;s constant refrain, that all the people who oppose his bizarre and unsavory policy prescriptions just don&#8217;t care. They&#8217;re not “caring enough.”
That’s very feminized Left-wing language from Tucker Carlson on a consistent basis.
What about Hamas? He said, “I officially don&#8217;t care about Hamas.”
That&#8217;s weird, because the dude talks about the Middle East more than anyone who does a broadcast. He cannot stop talking about the Middle East. He&#8217;s obsessed with it.
He says the U.S. government should have as its first priority the welfare of its own people, which, of course, I agree with.
Then he says, “I don&#8217;t want to be a candidate&#8230; I was tempted to say to the New York Times, ‘I&#8217;m running on the pro-patriarchy ticket.&#8217; Just to make sure I gain no new fans.”
This is always Tucker’s shtick; he says a bunch of Left-wing stuff, and then he throws out a Right-wing red meat red herring, and then goes on his merry way.
Tucker has no intention of starting a third party. That is not his actual game. He&#8217;s not going to do that. He&#8217;s too lazy. He has another game in mind.
What is Tucker doing? He&#8217;s not launching a third party. Tucker is not stupid. He is ideologically vile, but he is not stupid. He&#8217;s not going to run a third party because third parties fail.
To take the most obvious comparison, remember the Reform Party? Ross Perot ran as an Independent candidate in 1992, and he was focused largely on the evils of NAFTA and the idea that global economics was bad. He withdrew in July, and then jumped back in in October, and he ended up with 19% of the popular vote, which was the highest percentage for a third party since Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party in 1912.
In 1995, he launched the actual Reform Party, and this was a giant dud.
The United States is built for a two-party system because building a national infrastructure is extremely costly and very difficult. Perot won roughly 8% of the national popular vote in 1996.
But here&#8217;s the thing. I hope Tucker launches a third party.
Why? Because it&#8217;ll get crushed. Third parties get crushed. I would love to see a clean referendum on Tucker&#8217;s perverse views, but he&#8217;s not going to do that.
Here&#8217;s the game. Tucker sees that Republicans are probably going to have a bad 2026. What he wants to say is that the reason Republicans had a bad 2026 is that they alienated key people like him. Thus, if you wish to win in 2028, you need to shift the entire policymaking direction of the party back in his direction.
Tucker is not launching the Reform Party. Tucker is launching the TSA, the Tucker Socialists of America. His goal is for Republicans to lose in 2026. He&#8217;s not hiding the ball here. He has said he&#8217;s not voting Republican. He wants Republicans to lose. He is here to demoralize conservatives prior to 2026.
That is the goal; the worse Republicans do, the more Tucker can then try to pretend that the reason Republicans lost is that they disappointed voters like Tucker Carlson.
The reality is that if Republicans lose in 2026, there will be many factors at play. It&#8217;s an off-year election; Trump has been unpopular for a year.
Tucker is not launching some sort of rival to the Republican Party. He&#8217;s standing outside the Republican Party and then saying that because they didn&#8217;t hand it to him, they lost.
That&#8217;s the goal.
And that is just another reason we have to fight. Because people who care about the country, people who deeply care about those fundamental principles of America, the stuff we&#8217;re going to be celebrating this weekend, have to fight two forces: One is the Left, along with the DSA, and the other is the force of their twisted allies on the Woke Right, who are holding hands with them, who are hugging them.
There is a reason why Tucker Carlson and Cenk Uygur are hugging buddies now.
Our principles matter. Some of us have had the same principles for our entire political careers. Some of us have never moved, not one iota. Some of us have always defended private property and free markets. Some of us have always defended peace through strength. Some of us have always defended traditional virtue and traditional values.
Some of us have not moved. We&#8217;ve been here the entire time.
That is why the Daily Wire exists. It&#8217;s why it was founded: not just as some sort of generalized anti-Left brand, but because we actually care about the fundamental principles that undergird the country&#8217;s foundation.
So as we celebrate July 4th this weekend — and obviously we should, because America is the greatest place in the history of planet Earth, and the greatest privilege you have, other than being born into a solid family, is being born in America — we all must keep in mind there&#8217;s an immense responsibility that we all bear in these very perilous and difficult times.
We need to make sure that America makes it from the 250th anniversary to 251, then to 300, and then to 500.
And that only happens if we keep standing for the principles that matter.

IMG_4692

The Most Dangerous Alliance In American Politics

America 250

American History

Democratic Socialists Of America

third-party

Woke Right

Tucker Carlson announced this week that he’s leaving the Republican Party. And while many conservatives reacted with shock, <a href="https://x.com/GatesGarciaFL/status/2069500906471879012?s=20">I took to X to frame it in a different light. </a>
While I disagree with his decision, it didn&#8217;t catch me off guard. This has been building for years.
Many see the Nick Fuentes interview as the moment everything changed. I see it as one breadcrumb in a trail that had been leading here all along. His criticism of Republican politicians gradually became criticism of the Republican Party itself. After the Iran conflict, Carlson said he regretted supporting Trump and apologized for misleading people. That’s a major shift from criticizing a decision to questioning his support for the central figure of the movement. What once sounded like a call for reform increasingly sounded like preparation for an exit.
Carlson joins a long line of media figures — and even politicians themselves — to reach that conclusion, and he won’t be the last. But his announcement raises a more important question that all politically engaged Americans eventually face: What do you do when your party disappoints you?
America, for better or worse, is a two-party system. Since the Republican Party emerged as the nation’s second major party in the 1850s and elected Abraham Lincoln in 1860, no third-party candidate has won the presidency, and this is not for lack of trying. Some efforts have influenced the national conversation, no doubt. Some have even temporarily disrupted the political landscape (e.g., Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party, Ross Perot, and others). But all have failed to replace the reality that American politics is ultimately a contest between two major movements.
Once we accept this reality, another one becomes obvious. Neither party will ever perfectly represent your beliefs. I’ve personally criticized Republicans for abandoning the fiscal discipline they all champion on the campaign trail.
But political parties are coalitions, not churches. They are alliances of people who agree on enough major issues to work together while disagreeing on countless others. It’s no different from a corporate board, where rarely does everyone sit around a table agreeing on every issue. There are disagreements over priorities, strategy, and spending. But so long as the company is still moving forward and adhering to its mission statement, you stay, persuade, and build consensus. In other words, you work to move the organization in a better direction.
Rational citizens understand this. When voting, they ask: Which party advances my principles more often than not? The irrational citizen asks: Which party never disappoints me? The catch is, only one of those questions has an answer.
For me — especially as a father — the calculation isn’t particularly difficult. When I canvass the major cultural and political battles of our time, I know which side I’m on.
I believe unborn children deserve protection. I believe parents, not the government, should raise their kids. I believe women and girls deserve fairness in sports and privacy in bathrooms. I believe religious liberty is worth defending. I believe the Second Amendment matters. I believe in strong borders. I believe strong families matter. I believe government functions best when it’s limited and accountable. I believe America, despite its flaws, remains a force for tremendous good in the world and should be celebrated rather than apologized for.
Does the Republican Party bat a thousand on these issues? Of course not. Often, the party compromises when it shouldn’t and fails to deliver on promises. But if you’re looking for a party that perfectly executes on its foundational principles, you’ll be looking forever. But if the question is which political coalition advances those principles more consistently, the answer is incontestable.
And that’s where Carlson makes a mistake. He confuses disappointment with abandonment. Because the party falls short of perfection, it is no longer worthy of his support.
Carlson claims that many people will follow him. And while I doubt this, it introduces a problem. When you withdraw support from a political party closest to your beliefs, you don’t create a vacuum. You strengthen the coalition furthest from them.
Nonetheless, it is undeniable that Carlson has a meaningful following. And thus, we must acknowledge that every political decision carries consequences beyond oneself. One approach says, “My party isn’t perfect, so I’m leaving.” The other says, “My party isn’t perfect, so I’m staying and fighting to improve it.” One caters to personal satisfaction while the other strives to achieve outcomes. One protects your purity. The other protects your principles. One is selfish. One is selfless. The former feels better. The latter accomplishes more.
None of this implies blind loyalty. Parties should be criticized — your own, perhaps more. Politicians should be challenged and held accountable. Bad ideas should be rejected. In fact, healthy political movements depend on internal debate. This is the beauty of elections and is a defining characteristic of our American political system, which our Founders put in place 250 years ago.
But there is a profound difference between reforming a coalition and abandoning it. One strengthens the movement. The other weakens it. The American tradition has never been built by people waiting for perfect institutions. It has been built by citizens willing to work within imperfect systems.
That is how abolitionists transformed the Republican Party. That is how Reagan conservatives transformed the Republican Party.
They didn’t leave. They stayed, persuaded, organized, fought… and won.
So, Tucker Carlson is free to leave the Republican Party. That is his inherent American right. But for those who still believe in protecting children, defending families, securing borders, preserving religious liberty, protecting constitutional freedoms, and limiting government power, join me.
Because I’m staying, fighting, building, and will continue working to leave the party better than I found it.
***
Gates Garcia is the host of the YouTube show and podcast &#8220;We The People.&#8221; Follow him on Instagram and X @GatesGarciaFL.

happy family with the flag of america USA at sunset outdoors

Political And Cultural Battles Are Wars For The Soul. Choose Wisely.

Conservatism

Political Ideology

Republican Party

Tucker Carlson says he no longer supports the Republican Party.
That’s the same as Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
For a long time, I&#8217;ve been talking about ideological borders for conservatives, because words have meanings and political movements must have borders. It turns out these “Republicans” are self-deporting, which is a good thing, because what we don&#8217;t need in the party are people who won&#8217;t assimilate to our culture or our values and who would like our enemies to win.
Good riddance.
Vice President JD Vance was recently on Megyn Kelly&#8217;s show in order to trot out his defense of the Iran deal, and he said something interesting: that even if you disagree with the administration, you should vote Republican, because the alternative is to put Democrats in power. That makes sense.
Let’s put aside all of the nonsense that the vice president was peddling about how we really need a bunch of people who love the Iran deal to stay in, because otherwise the neocons are going to win, etc., etc.
The whole point of what people on the horseshoe Right, or the woke Right, are doing is to destroy the Republican Party from within, to throw their support to someone else in order to get the Republican Party to run after them.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/the-ben-shapiro-show-episode-2451?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
I&#8217;m okay with people who are rabidly anti-American leaving the party. I don&#8217;t think we need them here. I think that if you came into the Republican Party because you were a refugee from your home party or from your home ideology, and we brought you in here as a kindness, and then you proceeded to take advantage of our system and proceeded to believe that we were going to change all of our principles for you, it&#8217;s time for you to self-deport.
Now, Tucker Carlson is self-deporting from the Republican Party. He&#8217;s very upset with the administration because the administration is not pro-Russia or pro-Iran enough for him.
Yesterday, he announced on the “Can&#8217;t Be Censored” podcast — I have to admit, I find it somewhat hilarious that there are podcasts with sizable audiences that claim that they&#8217;re being “censored” — that he no longer supports the Republican Party; he can&#8217;t because it&#8217;s just too immoral. A moral Republican Party would have sided with Hezbollah, Iran, and the Russians.
Don&#8217;t let the door hit you on the way out.
He said:
<blockquote>How could I or any American voters support a political party that&#8217;s not loyal to the United States, that puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens &#8230; 
I voted Republican my entire life. &#8230; I&#8217;ve been a consistent defender for 35 years of the Republican Party. &#8230; But there&#8217;s no defending this because it&#8217;s immoral. And it&#8217;s exactly the opposite of what a political party in a democracy is charged with doing, which is representing its own voters, its own citizens, its own nation. And they&#8217;re not doing that. So no, I&#8217;m out.</blockquote>
Tucker acts like he&#8217;s been a Republican for 35 years. That&#8217;s weird, because he was a registered Democrat from 2006 to 2020. He said he did that so he could vote for the Democrats in primaries and manipulate the system — except that Washington, D.C., where he was living, has a closed primary system.
I have some questions.
If the Republican Party will not support Vladimir Putin&#8217;s aspirations in Ukraine, if the Republican Party will not sing the glories of Russian bread and Russian subways and Russian hamburgers, if the Republican Party will not bend over for Qatar completely, if the Republican Party refuses to just cheer on the Iranians as they foster terrorism throughout the region, my goodness, what are we even doing here?
Marjorie Taylor Greene echoed, “There is [sic] a lot of us that are absolutely fed up and will not support a party that betrays its voters and country. That does not mean we are turning into Democrats either. But we are done with the America Last Republican Party.”
Megyn Kelly told JD Vance that she never believed she should simply leave because she&#8217;s upset over what the Republicans are doing. But two weeks ago, she was with Sean Ryan talking about forming a horseshoe coalition with Ana Kasparian, who has tweeted support for terrorism.
The important point is that the Republican Party has certain principles. If you do not accord with those centralizing principles, e.g., peace through strength, then probably you shouldn&#8217;t be here. That&#8217;s okay. You can leave.
But you should not be the lodestar of a new Republican Party.
Self-deportation is a good policy for people who joined up for the wrong reasons in the first place.

tucker_divorce_padded_left (1)

The Political Divorce Everyone Saw Coming

JD Vance

Marjorie Taylor Greene

Megyn Kelly

Nick Fuentes

Tucker Carlson on Thursday downplayed and defended Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner’s Nazi tattoo.
On the Canadian &#8220;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzL_fmyMJJ0&amp;list=PLAxb11SPUbo6zjovYj1FPmfsMPxqtG387">Can’t Be Censored</a>&#8220; podcast<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzL_fmyMJJ0&amp;list=PLAxb11SPUbo6zjovYj1FPmfsMPxqtG387">,</a> the former Fox News host sat down with Travis Dhanraj and Karman Wong to discuss President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Israel, Iran, and why he says he can no longer support the Republican Party.
Carlson raised eyebrows with his defense of Platner’s candidacy to challenge incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins in Maine, where Carlson also lives. Republicans across the country have targeted Platner over a series of personal scandals, including a Nazi tattoo that women around him have said he understood the meaning of.
“Look at Graham Platner, this guy who&#8217;s running in the state of Maine, where I live … he&#8217;s a Democrat, he&#8217;s liberal, I don&#8217;t have strong feelings about it,&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/JustinUSA/status/2067951494289145935?s=20">Carlson said</a>. &#8220;But rather than respond to what the guy&#8217;s positions are, they just have called him a Nazi for the last month, because he had a tattoo that was not a swastika, but apparently it was connected to the German military at some point, it&#8217;s not even clear he knew that.” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
As expected, Tucker Carlson has rushed to Graham Platner’s defense.
He claims Platner didn’t even know about his Nazi tattoo, and insists the real reason people are attacking him is because he’s “not sufficiently supportive of Israel.” <a href="https://t.co/R30ZKXdtSv">pic.twitter.com/R30ZKXdtSv</a>
— Justin (@JustinUSA) <a href="https://x.com/JustinUSA/status/2067951494289145935?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 19, 2026</a></blockquote>
Then, the podcaster speculated why Republicans don’t support the Bernie Sanders-backed leftist. 
“They&#8217;ve attacked the guy, and his personal life. They don&#8217;t like him because he&#8217;s not sufficiently supportive of Israel,” Carlson added. 
Several women, including an ex-girlfriend, have gone on the record to say Platner knew the meaning behind his infamous Nazi tattoo, with one telling the <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/06/11/us-news/graham-platner-cheated-on-fiancee-bragged-about-nazi-tattoo-ex-girlfriend/?utm_term=MANUAL&amp;utm_medium=browser_notifications&amp;utm_source=pushly&amp;utm_content=All%20Push%20Subscribers&amp;utm_campaign=142895716">New York Post</a> the symbol reminded him that “the U.S. was the evil bad guy overseas.” The Senate hopeful’s former political director also disputed Platner’s account and accused him of “a pattern of dishonest behavior.”
The Platner campaign insists he picked a “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-accuser-platner-said-nazi-tattoo-reminded-him-u-s-was-the-evil-bad-guy-overseas?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=23&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=New+Accuser+Reveals+What+Platner+Said+About+His+Nazi+Tattoo">skull-and-crossbones tattoo off a wall</a>” to “commemorate surviving Ramadi and his friends who were killed there.” 
“Graham has also since covered up the tattoo and answered countless questions about it,” a spokesperson for the campaign has said. 
In the same interview, Carlson cast doubt on the motive behind Charlie Kirk’s assassination. 
“He was not murdered for his opinions on transgenderism,” Carlson insisted with no evidence. “Obviously, he was — I believe, and most people who knew him well, as I did, and was friends with him as I was — believe he was most likely murdered for his evolving views on Israel.” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Charlie Kirk was not murdered for his opinions on transgenderism. Obviously.
Those of us who knew him best and called him a friend believe he was most likely murdered for his evolving views on Israel. 👀
— Tucker Carlson 🇺🇸 <a href="https://t.co/D1mf5UXwHi">pic.twitter.com/D1mf5UXwHi</a>
— Travis (@NihiloX) <a href="https://x.com/NihiloX/status/2067799643979759965?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 19, 2026</a></blockquote>
Prosecutors say Tyler Robinson, the Utah man accused of assassinating the Turning Point USA founder, wrote in a message to his trans-identifying boyfriend that he had an “opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/inside-the-twisted-confession-tyler-robinson-is-accused-of-making-to-his-boyfriend">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported. 
Carlson, a vocal critic of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, said he has no interest in running for president but announced a permanent split with the Republican Party.
“The Republican Party in Washington is just completely out of control. I don&#8217;t share their values on any level, their personal values, the way they live, greedy, bizarro sex lives, loyal to a foreign country above the United States,” Carlson said, before taking shots at individual elected officials. 
“Beginning with the speaker of the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, and extending to the president and the leaders in the Senate. I have nothing in common with these people at all. I do not share their values. I find their priorities appalling, and so I&#8217;m just not going to participate in that party,” he said.

Tucker Defends Platner’s Nazi Tattoo, And Adds A Shot At The GOP

2026 Midterms

graham platner

Maine

News

Historically, Russia was very, very good at what we call psyops, psychological operations designed to undermine the United States.
They are still good at it. The Op is happening. It&#8217;s live, right in front of us. Candace Owens, Andrew Tate, and other Woke Right influencers have now landed in Moscow, and they&#8217;re basically Jane Fonda on the Vietcong anti-aircraft guns during the Vietnam War.
They propagandize for our enemies.
If you somehow believe that these people are just good-hearted folks who are invested in Christianity and the West and traditional conservative values, I hate to break it to you, but you are the sucker. If your head is attached to your shoulders, the Op has never been more obvious.
The dictator who currently runs Russia is Vladimir Putin. He was a member of the KGB. His task: Intelligence and counter-intelligence. He worked under a man named Yuri Andropov, who was then leading the KGB. Later, Andropov became the Premier of the Soviet Union, the dictator of the Soviet Union.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-show-ep-2438?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
And here&#8217;s what Andropov said about psyops directed at Soviet enemies: “Disinformation is like cocaine. Sniff once or twice. It may not change your life if you use it every day, though it will make you an addict, a different man.”
It seems like a lot of people in the West are now all coked up.
Candace Owens is in Russia sitting on Russian propaganda panels. She&#8217;s praising what she describes as Russia&#8217;s approach to families.
Spoiler alert: Russia&#8217;s idea of family values is encouraging couples to have kids so there is an ample supply of soldiers to fight in the Ukraine war.
Meanwhile, Marjorie Taylor Greene is doing the same sort of stuff, signaling her support for Candace&#8217;s big Russian adventure. And Buckley Carlson (a.k.a. Tucker Carlson, minus the skincare regimen) is openly saying that Russia&#8217;s leader looks out for his people&#8217;s interests, and he wishes we had that here. Tucker, of course, says exactly the same thing.
None of them are simply making critiques of America. They&#8217;re all saying that Russia is somehow better, that Russia&#8217;s leadership is somehow better.
And that&#8217;s the tell: There&#8217;s a big difference between saying “countries act in their own national interest” or “America has problems,” and “I wish our country were run more like Vladimir Putin&#8217;s Russia.” Those are not the same arguments.
One of those is rooted in realism. The other is just crazed fan-fiction conspiracy nonsense.
That is what this has become: Geopolitical fan fiction for people who think America sucks so much that countries like Russia not only ought to be a model for us, but ought to have more global power.
This is all part of what I have called a demoralization op.
Demoralization is the effort to destroy basic moral principles and dogmas and replace them with divisive fringe ideologies. It is step one in collapsing your enemies.
That is what is happening here. Enemies of America are using every resource at their disposal to do it — and there is good news for them: There’s an entire online repository of complete dunderheaded morons and conspiratorial America haters to do their dirty work for them, and lots of people online to click into the echo chamber.
The exact same people who built their brands around “Don&#8217;t trust the regime” and “Don&#8217;t trust the media” and “Don&#8217;t trust the propaganda” are suddenly very much in favor of trusting a regime, (when it&#8217;s Russia), the media, (when it&#8217;s Russia Today) and the propaganda, (when they are controlled by the Russian government and tell them America is decadent and the West is collapsing and Putin is strong and Russia protects tradition).
Suddenly, these people are on board all the way. They&#8217;re not investigating or questioning.
This is not skepticism. This is credulity. This is absolute, credulous stupidity. And they are nodding along either because they are bought and paid for, or because the message actually flatters their priors, and their priors are obvious: America sucks. America is in decline. America, in fact, is evil.
These are the ideas they parrot: We took the wrong side during World War II. We were vicious during the Cold War. We were the bad guys in the modern era. We were the great despoilers of innocent Muslims in the Middle East.
In the end, the result is all the same. The only way to fix all of this is to unburden the brutalized, demonized American soul, and give more power to America&#8217;s enemies.
We need — wait for it — multi-polarity. That&#8217;s how the Op works. The goal is to convince you that America is irredeemably crappy morally, and that the people we&#8217;ve always seen as our geopolitical opponents are actually not that bad. Russia is not that bad. In many ways they&#8217;re better than we are. Iran is not that bad. They don&#8217;t bother us. Maybe they could be our friend. China is not that bad.
That&#8217;s the Op, and it&#8217;s working on a large number of people who spend too much time online watching Tucker Carlson or Candace Owens or Sean Ryan or Andrew Tate or Megyn Kelly or any of the increasingly anti-American grifters and clickwhores willing to crap on America, either because they believe it, or for fame and money.

AmericanEagle_RussianBear

How The Woke Right Became What It Hates

Family Values

Majorie Taylor Greene

Putin

Positive views of capitalism among American adults have hit a record low of 54%. Sixty-five percent say the country is headed in the wrong direction. And 54% of Americans say they have little to no confidence in the FBI to investigate Charlie Kirk&#8217;s assassination impartially. Support for this nation is eroding, and it’s being accelerated not just by the predictable agitators on the Left, but increasingly by figures on the horseshoe Right.
Tucker Carlson sits at the center of this grievance party phenomenon, where progressive socialists and former-right podcasters converge to paint a portrait of a broken America. As someone whose friends and colleagues are being pulled in by these takes, it’s time we acknowledge that &#8220;just asking questions&#8221; has gone too far, it&#8217;s tiring, and it&#8217;s doing real damage.
Carlson has been telling audiences that the American capitalist system is &#8220;completely doomed,&#8221; made up of a &#8220;corrupt oligarchy&#8221; that hoards wealth while destroying the working class. He says this with the same energy as Hasan Piker and Bernie Sanders. You can dress it up in flannel, a navy blazer, or a Twitch hoodie — the message is still a lie.
The U.S. unemployment rate sits at 4.3%. Prime-age labor force participation is at a multi-decade high. Young people are not “screwed,” they&#8217;re competing in the most dynamic economy on earth. Over the last century, free markets lifted America to the world&#8217;s largest GDP, providing the tax base for infrastructure, defense, and schools. Because companies compete for your money, they are forced to innovate. That competitive drive gives you the internet, the iPhone, and medical treatments keeping your grandparents alive. The American Dream exists because capitalism rewards labor, skill, and entrepreneurship, regardless of starting point.
Tucker even wants to thwart capitalism’s future. He told Ben Shapiro he would ban self-driving cars to protect Midwest truckers — a specious position that would cost the rest of us dearly. Autonomous vehicles are projected to cut logistics costs 30–50%, add upwards of $70 billion to the GDP, and create high-skilled jobs in software, fleet management, and data analytics. Tractors didn&#8217;t kill farming; they multiplied output, allowing farmers to do more with less, and freed labor for entirely new industries. Every major innovation follows that same pattern. Short-term disruption equals massive long-term gains for everyone. Tucker&#8217;s demagoguery doesn&#8217;t save families; it raises prices, slows growth, and guarantees the stagnation he claims to hate.
His position is not conservative. It is the exact mirror of the grievance-party Left.
Tucker’s worldview, that nefarious forces are conspiring against the American people, doesn’t stop at the economy. In his recent New York Times interview, he stated explicitly that President Donald Trump &#8220;had no choice&#8221; but to join Israel in striking Iran, calling him &#8220;more a hostage than a sovereign decision-maker.&#8221; He claims Israel, Jewish donors, and evangelical Christians control U.S. foreign policy. He said Citibank poses a bigger threat to Americans than Hamas and Hezbollah. When asked about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion — a proven 1903 forgery by Russian secret police — he waved it off: &#8220;I don&#8217;t know what that is. I&#8217;ve heard references to it. It&#8217;s like czarist forgery or something.&#8221;
There’s a lot to unpack there.
First of all, Trump’s decision to strike Iran was driven by the nuclear and ballistic missile threat that the Islamic regime posed and a decades-long urge to take out the world’s largest funder of terrorism, which had been bullying America and her allies for decades. That is America First. That is not some slavish loyalty to Tel Aviv. Trump defied neocons, pressured NATO, brokered the Abraham Accords without a single American troop, and has repeatedly pressured Netanyahu to stand down. He is not anyone&#8217;s puppet. He never has been.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbies like every other interest group, including Saudi Arabia, Big Tech, and public sector unions. There is no evidence of &#8220;control.&#8221; Tucker&#8217;s &#8220;spell&#8221; and &#8220;hostage&#8221; language is the same occult-tinged conspiracy he once mocked when it came from the Left.
As for the Protocols, that document was debunked in 1921 by The Times of London, weaponized by the Nazis to justify genocide, and has zero basis in reality. Tucker knows this. His &#8220;I don&#8217;t know&#8221; is not intellectual humility. It is a deliberate wink. There are 15 million Jewish people worldwide, 6 million of whom live in America among 340 million citizens. Jewish Americans succeed through the same merit, education, and entrepreneurship available to everyone. If you want to talk about foreign influence operations, look at Qatar funding Ivy League campuses, Chinese influence in our social media ecosystem, and Shanghai billionaires funding anti-American protest movements. Those are documented. Those are real.
On Citibank being a threat to Americans…there was a Hezbollah-linked shooting in Michigan last month, and I use Capital One, pay my bills, and budget monthly. So no, Citibank isn’t keeping me up at night, and if it does for Tucker, I would suggest he lay off the ALP pouches.
Tucker&#8217;s final avenue for institutional sabotage is the FBI&#8217;s handling of Charlie Kirk&#8217;s assassination. Listen, friends, I understand why many of us are skeptical of the FBI. Both President Barack Obama and Joe Biden&#8217;s DOJ weaponized federal power against conservative leaders, grandmothers, and a sitting president in ways this country had never seen. That consequential distrust was justified, but here the goalposts have moved to an unrecognizable place: Trump is in office, Kash Patel is running the FBI, Dan Bongino walked out and told us everything, and somehow, even now, it&#8217;s all still a cover-up. At some point, the conspiracy has to end, and the evidence has to begin.
The fact is that Tyler Robinson’s guilt is overwhelming. Prosecutors have matched DNA on the rifle trigger, the towel wrapped around the bolt-action, and the spent casing to Robinson. ATF ballistics confirmed the weapon. Before the shooting, Robinson wrote a letter to his roommate stating he &#8220;had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I&#8217;m going to take it.&#8221; He posted confessions on Discord. Video placed him on the Utah Valley University campus hours before the shot. He surrendered voluntarily within 33 hours after his father tipped off authorities. The investigation wasn&#8217;t sabotaged; it was solved.
Carlson isn&#8217;t defending Kirk&#8217;s legacy. He&#8217;s exploiting a martyr&#8217;s death to erode trust in the institutions conservatives fought to reclaim.
Carlson has been transparent about where this is all heading. He wants a new political party: isolationist on foreign policy, restrictionist on immigration, and — crucially — interventionist in the economy. Ben Shapiro identified it correctly: that&#8217;s a National Socialist Party, and history has a unanimous verdict on that experiment.
Every government that has tried centrally managed economies — the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Venezuela, Cuba — followed the same arc. First, they promise protection from the chaos of the market. Then, they pick winners and losers. Next, shortages, stagnation, and repression follow, inevitably. The Soviet Union&#8217;s GDP per capita in 1990, after 70 years of central planning, was one-seventh of America&#8217;s. Venezuela, once the wealthiest country in Latin America, saw its economy collapse 75% between 2013 and 2021 after nationalizing industries and freezing prices. These aren&#8217;t outliers, they’re the rule. Carlson&#8217;s &#8220;carve-outs&#8221; for truckers and banks are just the polite, populist entry point to a far uglier destination.
Here is the uncomfortable truth about why we&#8217;re even having this conversation: America is so extraordinarily prosperous that we have the luxury of entertaining these ideas. Our poor have air conditioning. Our working class has smartphones. Our life expectancy, even accounting for recent dips, is historically high. When you&#8217;ve never known genuine scarcity — not theoretical scarcity, but Cuban-pharmacy-shelf scarcity — it becomes very easy to romanticize the idea that the system is rigged.
That’s precisely the audience Carlson is playing to: comfortable enough to be frustrated, not desperate enough to remember what actually fails.
Tucker Carlson is not a conservative. He&#8217;s not America First. He is Tucker Carlson First. He’s a man who has found that grievance sells, that &#8220;just asking questions&#8221; about Jewish cabals and FBI cover-ups generates more clicks than defending the free market ever will. His brand is built on the premise that America is broken. He loses his audience if America heals. That is not patriotism. That is a business model.
Reagan proved the alternative. Trump is proving it again. Free markets, applied honestly, have produced the greatest reduction in poverty in human history. They’ve lifted over a billion people out of it in the last three decades alone. Strong borders, enforced consistently, are not racist; they’re necessary. An America First foreign policy means striking Iran when our nation is threatened, not when Tel Aviv asks. Rejecting antisemitic conspiracy theories is not defending Israel — it&#8217;s defending logic, because 15 million people do not secretly run a planet of 8 billion. Sorry.
Tucker Carlson is a talented broadcaster who chose the wrong hill to die on. He can come back, but until he does, I would treat his content the way you&#8217;d treat a teenager having a tantrum: acknowledge the emotion, reject the premise, and don&#8217;t let her near the car keys.

Tucker Carlson, former FOX News host and current host of The Tucker Carlson Show

In Tucker Carlson’s World, It’s Not America First, It’s Tucker First

America First

Social Media

A Democratic congresswoman highlighted criticism of President Donald Trump from podcasters Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Candace Owens while questioning War Secretary Pete Hegseth during a fiery committee hearing on Wednesday.
Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) asked Hegseth if he believes Trump &#8220;is mentally stable enough to be the commander-in-chief&#8221; and brought up a number of former Trump-supporting podcasters who are now questioning the president&#8217;s mental acuity.
&#8220;In fact, many, many Republicans have had the same questions,&#8221; Jacobs said. &#8220;Marjorie Taylor Greene said he&#8217;s out of control and he&#8217;s gone insane. Candace Owens said the 25th Amendment needs to be invoked — Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, who you used to work with, Alex Jones, Stephanie Grisham, the list could go on.&#8221;
Hegseth dismissed Jacobs&#8217; question and ripped Democrats for raising questions on Trump&#8217;s ability to lead after the party turned a blind eye to issues around former President Joe Biden.
&#8220;Did you ask the same question of Joe Biden for four years?&#8221; Hegseth shot back. &#8220;You did not, and I won&#8217;t even engage with the level of disparagement that you&#8217;re putting on the commander-in-chief &#8230; he&#8217;s the sharpest and most insightful commander-in-chief we&#8217;ve had in generations. And you want to ask that question after you and your fellow Democrats defended Joe Biden, who could barely speak and didn&#8217;t know what day of the week it was. He governed with an autopen. You had a secretary of defense who went AWOL for a week.&#8221;
<div style="max-width: 728px; margin: 0 auto;"><iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; margin: 20px auto 5px; border: 0;" src="https://player.mux.com/wk00Wi7eYHJt3xm7TsGYPoUKIbc201MWXv?metadata-video-content-type=embed_video&amp;metadata-video-id=991c8a03-a2fb-4ee7-b6a4-641bbb0ba42d&amp;metadata-video-stream-type=on-demand&amp;metadata-video-title=Democrat%20Invokes%20Tucker%20Carlson%2C%20Megyn%20Kelly%2C%20Candace%20Owens%20&amp;poster=https%3A%2F%2Fdailywireplus-v2.imgix.net%2Fimages%2Fembedded-videos%2Fde2bee5a-a85a-44e4-867a-f20892c8e0a1.png&amp;autoplay=false&amp;accent-color=%23DB3D3B&amp;primary-color=%23ffffff&amp;secondary-color=%23000000" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
The heated exchange took place during a House Armed Services Committee hearing, where Hegseth and Gen. Dan &#8220;Razin&#8221; Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced questions about the ongoing war in Iran.
The war has enraged Democrats and podcasters who used to support Trump — like Carlson, Kelly, and Owens — who have ramped up their criticism of Trump in recent weeks. Carlson, who recently apologized for endorsing Trump in 2024, has repeatedly accused Trump of conducting the military operation in Iran at Israel&#8217;s bidding. He also claimed earlier this month that Trump was considering using a weapon of mass destruction “on the population of Iran.” Kelly has also claimed that Trump is being played by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and said the president is “too weak” and “too gullible” to push back on Israel&#8217;s demands.
Owens, meanwhile, has called the Trump administration &#8220;satanic&#8221; and referred to Trump as a &#8220;Mad King,&#8221; while urging the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove the president from office.
Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-goes-nuclear-on-tucker-megyn-and-candace?author=Zach+Jewell&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=11&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+Goes+Nuclear+On+Tucker%2C+Megyn%2C+And+Candace">blasted</a> the podcasters earlier this month, calling them &#8220;nut jobs,&#8221; &#8220;troublemakers,&#8221; and &#8220;stupid people.&#8221; The president also pointed out that the podcasters are being hailed by the Left for their opposition to his administration.
“These so-called ‘pundits’ are LOSERS, and they always will be! Now Fake News CNN, The Failing New York Times, and all of the other Radical Left ‘News’ Organizations, are ‘hailing’ them, and giving them ‘positive’ press for the first time in their lives,” Trump said. “They’re not ‘MAGA,’ they’re losers, just trying to latch on to MAGA.”

Democrat Invokes Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens In Heated Hearing

Congress

Menu