Vice President JD Vance said Thursday he is still friends with Tucker Carlson, even after the commentator called for President Donald Trump&#8217;s removal from office and condemned Mike Rogers the same week Vance stumped for him.
Vance was asked during a White House press briefing about conservatives who are leery of his close connection with Carlson, particularly as the former Fox News host has attacked Trump and the Republican Party more broadly. 
“Everybody knows that Tucker Carlson and I are friends, and I think it&#8217;s very obvious that Tucker has said some things that I disagree with,” Vance said. “He said some things about the President of the United States that I think are just wrong.”
Vance’s comments came after Carlson said he could never support Mike Rogers over Abdul El-Sayed in the critical Michigan midterm Senate race. 
“I think El-Sayed’s a crazy person,” Vance said. “And I think whatever your views on Mike Rogers’ specific policy prescriptions, I’d like to have a non-crazy person like Mike Rogers representing Michigan in the United States Senate, rather than a crazy person like El-Sayed.”
Vance said his disagreements with Carlson did not mean he would end their friendship. He recalled watching friends of his wife, Usha Vance, publicly turn against her after Trump selected him as his running mate in 2024.
&#8220;I remember thinking to myself, what a travesty it is that in the United States of America, we let political disagreements define who our friends are going to be and not going to be,&#8221; Vance <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/jd-vance-defends-relationship-with-friend-tucker-carlson-who-just-called-for-trumps-removal">said</a>.
&#8220;So yeah, Tucker is a friend of mine,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;Tucker is a friend, despite the fact that we disagree on a number of things. And I&#8217;m not gonna play the game where I throw friends under the bus because I have political disagreements with them.&#8221;
During an episode of his podcast released Wednesday, Carlson and commentator Saagar Enjeti lauded El-Sayed for his &#8220;America First&#8221; campaign. Enjeti noted El-Sayed’s opposition to U.S. support for Israel and his focus on keeping health care affordable.
“He stands in front of a giant American flag. It’s almost Trumpian in terms of a lot —” Enjeti said.
“Well, it’s literally Trumpian,” Carlson interjected.
Carlson <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/politics/tucker-carlson-all-but-endorses-trumpian-democrat-abdul-el-sayed-i-wouldnt-vote-for-mike-rogers-at-gunpoint/">said</a> he &#8220;wouldn&#8217;t vote for Mike Rogers at gunpoint&#8221; and that there was &#8220;no one who should be farther from a position of power&#8221; than the Republican candidate.
Carlson has sharply criticized the Trump administration’s approach to the war in Iran and previously sparked controversy by questioning whether Trump could be the “Antichrist” after the president posted an AI-generated image depicting himself as Jesus.
“If you have a disagreement with somebody politically, even over a deeply held issue, you should still be friends with that person, because the whole republic depends on people of different perspectives being able to talk to one another,” Vance said.

drew-jd-tucker

JD Vance Says Tucker Is Still A Friend Of His, Who He Won’t Throw ‘Under The Bus’

abdul el-sayed

jd vance

michigan senate election

mike rogers

politics

tucker carlson

Jewish Republicans were encouraged to give Vice President JD Vance a “warm welcome” ahead of his speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition by former Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer, a close confidant of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Dermer, who served as Israel’s ambassador to the United States from 2013 to 2021 and later as the country’s minister of strategic affairs, spoke to the gathering just before Vance addressed the conference Monday night. He praised Vance’s support for Israel and his role during the 12-day war between Israel and Iran in 2025, telling attendees he was grateful for the vice president’s actions at a critical moment.
Dermer’s remarks came as Vance has faced criticism from some in the pro-Israel community over his close relationship with conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson, who has repeatedly platformed numerous antisemites. But Dermer offered the audience a more personal account of his relationship with Vance, recalling that he first met the future vice president when Vance was running for Senate in Ohio.
“I first met the vice president when he was running for Senate,” Dermer said. “I was out of office, and he was running for Senate in Ohio. And somebody suggested, ‘Hey, this person, you know, is going to run. You should really go meet him.’”
Dermer said he and Vance subsequently spent roughly two hours together over lunch in Jerusalem.
“And he was—he’s definitely one of the smartest people that I had met in the Senate,” Dermer said, adding with a joke, “You could say that’s a low bar, but he’s super smart.”
More importantly, Dermer said Vance was focused from the beginning on understanding the strategic rationale behind the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Dermer then turned to Vance’s role during the 12-day war between Israel and Iran in June 2025, describing the conflict as one of the most significant military successes in Israel’s history.
“And I want to tell this audience something,” Dermer said. “That 12-day war that we did last June, I was out of government when this—this recent joint operation started.”
Dermer said the conflict represented “the greatest and most spectacular military success that Israel has ever had” since the Six-Day War.
He specifically credited Vance with playing a critical role in the operation, particularly during its opening hours, when maintaining an element of surprise was essential.
“The Vice President of the United States, Vice President Vance, played a critical role in that 12-day war, and particularly the first day, where that element of surprise was so critical to our success,” Dermer said.
“And I will be forever grateful for the role that he played at that critical moment,” he continued. “It kept Israel safe, and I commend you for inviting him here tonight.”
Vance received a warm reception when he took the stage Monday night for a conversation with RJC National Chairman and former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman. The discussion was held off the record and closed to the press, but The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/listen-jd-vances-secret-interview-in-front-of-republican-jews">obtained a full recording</a>.
During the conversation, Coleman directly raised the issue of controversial podcasters, naming Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Joe Rogan and Nick Fuentes, and asked Vance how he determines when to engage with platforms that have given a voice to people accused of holding antisemitic views.
Vance defended his willingness to appear on influential podcasts, arguing that Republicans need to reach voters wherever they are rather than shun controversial figures.
“I do not think that Joe Rogan and Nick Fuentes are the same,” Vance said, drawing a distinction between the two based on both their ideas and their reach.
Vance said he believes Republicans should engage with people like Rogan even when they disagree with things the podcaster has said.
“I think it’s a mistake to sort of say we’re going to write Joe Rogan off because he said something that we don’t like,” Vance said. “I think the best approach is to actually go in there, and talk to him, and make the arguments as best as you can.”
Vance pointed to Rogan’s reach among persuadable voters as evidence that Republicans cannot afford to ignore influential podcasters. He said Republicans had studied podcast audiences in connection with the midterm elections and found that Rogan’s audience included a substantially larger percentage of persuadable voters than those of other major podcasters.
“With Rogan, it’s something like 35 to 40%,” Vance said.
“And so I think that there, one, I do not think that Joe Rogan and Nick Fuentes are the same, just substantively, but as a political matter, I think that we have got to be willing to go everywhere and bring our message anywhere and to any person,” he said.
Vance acknowledged that his approach would mean appearing in environments where hosts or audiences may hold views with which he strongly disagrees.
“You got to meet people where they are and make the arguments as best as you can,” he said. “And that is I think ultimately how you win the political debate. It’s not by shunning people.”
He said there were nevertheless limits to whom he would engage, citing people who had attacked his wife or praised Adolf Hitler.
“But outside of some pretty bright lines, I try to talk to as many people as I can,” Vance said.
Vance did not directly condemn Carlson during the exchange.
The vice president has also faced criticism from prominent Jewish and pro-Israel figures over his own comments about Israel, including remarks suggesting that some Israeli officials have sought to influence American public opinion to prolong the war. 
During an appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Vance accused some Israeli officials of trying to influence American public opinion in order to prolong the war.
“There are some people within their system that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt are manipulating and trying to change American public opinion to keep the war going on indefinitely,” Vance said.

Vice President Vance Discusses Administration’s Fight Against Fraud In Milwaukee

Top Netanyahu Ally Makes The Case For JD Vance To Jewish Republicans

benjamin netanyahu

republican jewish coalition

ron dermer

Capitalism is under heavy fire today.
It is perfectly obvious that we are in the middle of an all-out assault on free markets. It&#8217;s coming predominantly from the Left, but not just from the Left. A large segment of the Right is very anti-free markets now.
A chart of global average GDP per capita starting in roughly 1600 through 2025 shows that people had zero GDP per capita essentially all the way through the early 19th century. And then free markets happened, catalyzing the exponential explosion of GDP per capita.
That was not because of government centralization of resources, which had been practiced throughout human history. It wasn’t because of vast thickets of bureaucratic regulations.
It came from a very simple proposition: You own your own labor and the product of your labor. You own your own innovation and the products of that innovation, and you should be free to sell, rent, or trade them.
Period.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-show-ep-2484?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>
There are now a variety of arguments being leveled against capitalism. They come down to basically two arguments in the end.
The first: Capitalism creates inequality.
You might say to yourself, “Hold up. If capitalism creates inequality, but everybody&#8217;s wealthier, isn&#8217;t that still better than the alternative?”
The answer is yes, but not according to Bernie Sanders, who wrote:
<blockquote>The economic system with its excessive corporate greed and concentration of ownership and power destroys anything that gets in its way of the pursuit of profits. It destroys the environment. It destroys our health. It destroys our democracy. It discards human beings without a second thought.</blockquote>
Says the millionaire with the lake house.
From Zohran Mamdani:
<blockquote>We see the wealthiest country in the history of the world, one where children go to sleep hungry while the world&#8217;s first trillionaire hungers for more. We see monopolies that dominate every industry and oligarchs who buy elections. We see masked agents terrorizing our streets, eating food cooked by our undocumented neighbors before spiriting them away in unmarked vans. We see a nation whose immense wealth has been built by those with calloused, dirt-streaked hands, those who toil on factory floors and chisel into stone. And we see a nation that has allowed so much of that wealth to be held instead in the soft hands.</blockquote>
It&#8217;s all about the poor versus the rich. It&#8217;s inequality, it&#8217;s cruelty, and it&#8217;s monopoly.
And of course, this is not just from Mamdani; it&#8217;s also from Tucker Carlson, who does not understand how economics works and doesn&#8217;t care to understand how economics works. He says it&#8217;s unfair that people in finance make more than wage earners.
That, of course, is putting aside the fact that people in finance are the ones who actually bear the risk, while wage earners earn a wage guaranteed by someone else.
Carlson: 
<blockquote>So if you have a tax code, for example, just to name one example, if you have a tax code that taxes wage earners at more than twice the percentage it taxes investors, what are you saying? Well, you&#8217;re saying it&#8217;s twice as virtuous to invest money or to inherit money and keep it in the markets as it is to go to work in the morning. Really? Of course, that&#8217;s what you&#8217;re saying. Because any tax code penalizes the impious acts, the bad things, the vices. Cigarettes cost $18 a pack because we&#8217;re against smoking. So if being an ordinary wage earner, driving in from the suburbs to make 80 grand a year, if that&#8217;s taxed at twice the rate of being a private equity baron, what are we saying? That it&#8217;s twice as virtuous to be a private equity baron and to inherit money.</blockquote>
That&#8217;s just stupid. There are plenty of taxes that you pay that are not a tax on vice. There are taxes on property. Is it a vice to own property in the United States? There&#8217;s a tax on death. There&#8217;s an estate tax. Is it a vice to die?
The reason why capital gains are taxed at a lower rate, for example, than wages, is because they&#8217;ve mostly already been taxed.
Carlson believes that capitalism is also evil because capitalism somehow empties you of your soul, as he told the New York Times.
That&#8217;s argument one. Capitalism causes inequality.
Argument number two is that capitalism is not spiritually fulfilling. It&#8217;s not providing you your meaning in life. Carlson, 2019: “Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool like a staple gun or a toaster. You&#8217;d have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets, just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.”
The idea that capitalism weakens and destroys families and undermines religion is not new. Tucker is not the only one who has said this historically. Here is a quote. Guess who said it?
<blockquote>The Western way of life founded, in effect, on practical and technical knowledge, discovery, invention and the flooding of world markets with mechanical products has remained incapable of offering to men&#8217;s minds a flicker of light, a ray of hope, a grain of faith, or of writing anxious persons the smallest path toward rest and tranquility. Man is not simply an instrument, among others. Naturally, he has grown tired of purely material conditions and seeks spiritual comfort. But the materialistic life of the West could only offer him as reassurance a new materialism of sin, passion, drink, women, noisy gatherings and showy attractions which he has come to enjoy.</blockquote>
It sounds like Tucker Carlson, but actually it is Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, who called for an international armed struggle against colonial rule by Muslims and argued for full-scale jihad.
This is where we are right now: a gigantic coalition of people who despise capitalism. People who find it spiritually unfulfilling, who claim that it robs us of our individuality, or say that it is what creates inequality. They are all uniting. They are their own unique party. Everyone from communists to post-liberal integralists to quasi-fascists to radical Muslims.
Why?
Because in essence, capitalism makes two arguments. One: You are an individual created in the image of God with individual desires, wants, needs, and capabilities. Two: As long as those desires, wants, needs, and capabilities do not harm anyone else and do not violate basic morality, they ought to remain in your control.
The new red-green-brown anti-capitalist party believes that&#8217;s not true.
They believe the same thing that the French revolutionaries believed: that the collective vision of man is paramount. Private property and free markets run counter to that vision.
These folks can&#8217;t build utopia without destroying that vision. They promise Utopia, either a communist utopia with government-owned grocery stores like Zohran Mamdani, the “warmth of collectivism,” or an Islamic utopia with the Caliphate at the head, or the agrarian utopia run by kind-hearted feudal lords.
It&#8217;s all garbage. So why are people believing it?
There are a few reasons. First, ingratitude. Human life in its natural state is nasty, brutish, and short. On a material level, pretty much everything was awful for all of human history until property rights, contract law, and credit were invented and turned large swathes of the world, including places difficult to live in, into semi-bearable places for the first time ever.
Here&#8217;s the truth: Most people living in the West right now have never spent time in truly poor places that lack the things we think of as vital. When you start thinking that human life in its natural state is a microwave, a central AC, a car, two TVs, a cell phone, a furnished apartment, or a house, you start comparing yourself to what could be in a Utopia.
This is why, when you hear Gavin Newsom, a very, very wealthy man, say capitalism does not work — I don&#8217;t believe him.
People have incredibly short memories. There are a lot of other models that have been tried elsewhere and are still being tried, yet they still fail, but we keep bringing them back.
Why not try centralized government with price controls? Because we&#8217;ve done that a thousand times and it&#8217;s crap.
Why not try a religious theocracy? A lot of countries did that for several centuries, and there are still some places on Earth trying to do it, and it&#8217;s really garbage.
Why not try economic fascism with the bureaucratic government that picks winners and losers? We&#8217;ve tried that too, and it&#8217;s terrible.
We have just not yet felt the consequences of all this interventionism. We are trying a bunch of these experiments right now, and they are going to fail. We are going to crash and burn.
But when you jump from a burning building, the first few stories are fine. It&#8217;s the last one that&#8217;s a doozy.
So what should we do differently?
It may be worth conceding that a lot of young voters with a predilection for the DSA haven&#8217;t ever had a positive case made to them about capitalism; many of them have been living with the political effects of the 2008 financial crash and the stagnation of Obama and the subsequent bailout and how it was perceived by the public, and then COVID.
It’s time to teach them.

IMG_5925

The Economic Experiment America Will Regret

bernie sanders

capitalism

socialism

zohran mamdani

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

democratic party

donald trump

iran

satire

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

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

Democrats

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

Ben Shapiro

democratic socialists of america

opinion

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

Marjorie Taylor Greene

megyn kelly

nick fuentes

Republicans

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.

Menu