Ironically, during his apparent quest for humanity, Bardem simultaneously failed to mention that Oscar-nominated Jafar Panahi has been the target of the Iranian regime, having been arrested on multiple occasions and even sentenced in absentia to a year in prison for criticizing the government.

But that doesn’t count, for some reason, and neither does the massacre of tens of thousands of Iranian citizens for daring to protest the regime. Because apparently, all that peace requires is for multimillionaires to stand on a stage in Los Angeles — thousands of miles from the conflict raging in the Middle East — and simply declare that war is bad.

Problem solved!

Thank you for reading my latest syndicated column! Please consider joining our growing community by subscribing:

Subscribe now

The actual problem here, though — beyond the fact that the war in Gaza is over (for now) and that the war in Iran was started by Iran after murdering Americans and Israelis for almost 50 years — is the second part of Bardem’s declaration: Free Palestine. Why? Because it is impossible to have “no war” and “free Palestine.”

The obvious follow-up response to anyone who proclaims “Free Palestine” — apart from “Get a job” — is “Free Palestine from whom?” So let’s consider the two culprits. First, there’s the option Bardem obviously doesn’t consider: Free Palestine from Hamas. For those who have forgotten, Hamas is a brutal Islamist terrorist organization whose entire existence rests upon their genocidal obsession with eradicating (as their own charter puts it) the “warmongering Jews.” In the aftermath of the latest shaky ceasefire, they have immediately moved to reassert complete and ruthless control over the Gaza Strip and its citizens. So, how does Bardem suggest that we free Palestinians from Hamas without war when war is the only language Hamas understands? Muffin baskets?

Second, there’s the culprit who — according to Bardem — is to blame here: Free Palestine from Israel. But even if we ignore that Israel has not occupied the Gaza Strip in two decades, and its so-called “occupation” in sections of the West Bank is the result of multiple Arab attempts to destroy Israel and multiple Palestinian refusals to accept peace agreements, there’s another issue here: how do you “Free Palestine from Israel” without war when the Palestinians have rejected peace in favor of war time after time after time?

Things get even more complicated when we extend the borders of Palestine from the river to the sea, thereby encompassing the entirety of Israel. How does Bardem want to free Israel from Israel without war? By politely asking Israelis to march into the sea? Good luck with that one.

Of course, Javier Bardem is free to be as anti-Israel and as anti-war and as stupid as he wishes to be. But sooner or later, he’s going to have to accept the reality that his Israel-hating allies aren’t quite as anti-war as he thinks he is.

Share

In the aftermath of an ISIS-inspired attack in New York City, it wasn’t just CNN that became the target of widespread scorn. As CNN’s report of the would-be terrorist bombing focused on the weather and the alleged perpetrators, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was also lambasted for beginning his address by focusing on Islamophobia.

“On Saturday, a protest was held outside Gracie Mansion, where I live with my wife, Rama. Neither of us were home at the time. This was a vile protest rooted in white supremacy entitled, ‘Stop the Islamic takeover of New York City.’ I’m the first Muslim mayor of our city. Anti-Muslim bigotry is nothing new to me,” Mamdani began in a brief speech, with this particular part going viral as if Mamdani’s focus had been on Islamophobia.

Thank you for reading my latest column! Please consider joining our growing community by subscribing:

Subscribe now

Now, it’s true that whataboutism always emerges in the immediate aftermath of Islamic terrorism in a deliberate attempt to conflate antisemitism and anti-Muslim bigotry. But this wasn’t such an example. Following his viral comments, Mamdani continued:

“While I found this protest appalling, I will not waver in my belief that it should be allowed to happen. Ours is a free society where the right to peaceful protest is sacred. It does not belong only to those we agree with. It belongs to everyone. I will defend that right every day that I am mayor, even when those protesting say things that I abhor.”

This is the United States of America, and our First Amendment includes the freedoms of speech and assembly. Mamdani defended these freedoms while being well within his right to abhor the protest itself. In isolation, there was nothing wrong with what he said.

But there’s a deeper problem here that goes far beyond a scripted speech. A problem that relates to Dana Rubinstein’s argument for The New York Times is that Mamdani replicated the same strategy used when protesters chanted “death to the IDF,” “globalize the intifada,” or pro-Hamas bile outside New York synagogues.

When it comes to Islamophobia, Mamdani comes out guns blazing. When it comes to Islamic terrorism, however, his usual communications style is replaced with something reserved, edited, and controlled.

Why? Well, because Mamdani still wants to globalize the intifada, and his base — as shown by his administration appointments — demonstrates his continued embrace of radicals. Let alone his wife, whose social media activity contains a long list of pro-terrorism content, including liking a post that presented Hamas’s rape rampage of Oct. 7, 2023, as a New York Times hoax.

Even if you think Mamdani’s speech was sufficient as proof of his rejection of Islamic terrorism, only a fool would ignore what Mamdani has done and is still doing. For me, it’s going to take far more than one speech to convince me that Mamdani is not the same person he’s always been. After all, this is the same Mamdani who supposedly decried Islamic terrorism before immediately welcoming Mahmoud Khalil over for dinner. Mamdani was even “honored” to host Khalil, a Syrian-born activist and fomenter of Hamas propaganda on American college campuses who called the slaughter of Jews an unavoidable moment justified by Hamas’s “struggle.”

As long as Mamdani embraces the Mahmoud Khalils of the world behind closed doors, I’m not buying that Mamdani cares about the realities of Islamic terrorism.

Share

“Two Pennsylvania teenagers crossed into New York City Saturday morning for what could’ve been a normal day enjoying the city during abnormally warm weather. But in less than an hour, their lives would drastically change as the pair would be arrested for throwing homemade bombs during an anti-Muslim protest outside of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s home. Here’s what we know so far...”

Thank you for reading my latest syndicated column! Please consider joining our growing community by subscribing:

Subscribe now

Remember: Someone employed by CNN actually sat down and wrote that and was happy enough to pass it up the chain to someone else (also employed by CNN) who read it, liked it and published it. After the predictable backlash, CNN hastily deleted the post hours later with the following explanation:

“A post regarding the two individuals arrested for throwing homemade bombs outside of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s home failed to reflect the gravity of the incident thereby breaching the editorial standards we require for all our reporting. It has therefore been deleted.”

The only real news here is that CNN had any editorial standards to begin with.

While it’s fun to tear into CNN for having to delete its own coverage, it’s also crucially important to understand why the original post — and even the follow-up post — was so deeply problematic. It’s not that a report on an attempted Islamic terrorist attack in New York City began with details of the “abnormally warm weather,” or even the vague nature of “throwing homemade bombs during an anti-Muslim protest outside of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s home,” which thereby left readers free to assume, perhaps deliberately, that the bomb-throwers were part of the anti-Muslim protest and not targeting the protest.

No, the problem here is one that has been prevalent throughout the Western media for decades: a soft bigotry of low expectations when it comes to Islamic terror, in which radical Muslims — hellbent on committing acts of murder, barbarity and carnage — don’t have complete agency over their decisions. It’s as if these “teenagers” — aged 18 and 19, making them legal adults — left Pennsylvania and had no choice but to start throwing homemade bombs!

Moreover, why is the focus of the report the experience of the perpetrators — with “their lives” changing “dramatically” as if they were mere spectators — rather than the focus being the would-be victims who narrowly escaped death?

Consider the response to a darkly satirical equivalent report following the attacks of Sept. 11, in which “19 men from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon boarded planes one September morning for what could’ve been a normal day enjoying a cross-country flight. But in less than an hour, their lives would drastically change.” Somehow, 2001 was a less insane time.

Share

After weeks of tensions, threats, and will-they-wont-theys, the United States and Israeli military finally kicked off their campaign to kneecap (or potentially eradicate) the despotic Islamist regime of Iran. Most of us have responded like sensible adults, patiently awaiting news (from the safety of our homes) of the war while praying for the safety of our service-members as they defend our freedom and values. And yet — as usual — there is the almost unified response from the small-and-whiny coalition of radical Islamists and/or pseudo-libertarian professional tweeters, who couldn’t be more outraged.

Cenk Uyghur praised Khamenei for dying “on his own two feet, instead of kneeling to Israel,” who “pushed us into this asinine war,” Dave Smith called President Trump a “traitor,” and Tucker Carlson called it “Israel’s war,” amidst an explosion of moronic declarations across social media that “I’m not going to die for Israel!”

As usual, the obsessive desire to tie this war — much in the same way as wars of the past — to the warmongering Jews who want your children to fight and die for them is sheer unadulterated nonsense.

Subscribe now

First, the American military is undoubtedly the finest and most awesome military force in the history of humanity, made up of the best-of-the-best who volunteer to serve our country. Does anyone seriously believe they’re desperate for a bunch of chubby keyboard warriors and their privileged children — some of whom even have cushy jobs in the Trump administration — to fight alongside them?

Second, does anyone seriously believe that Israel is simultaneously all-powerful that they can manipulate the United States into war, but waited decades to twist Donald Trump of all people into attacking Iran? Is Donald Trump that easily manipulated? Donald Trump, the man who has done what he wants, where he wants, when he wants for his entire life?

Lastly, and most importantly, we should also address an underlying argument that this war is somehow unjustified — as Rep. Ilhan Omar argued — as if Iran hasn’t been our enemy for almost 50 years. Yes, casualties from this campaign are both inevitable and tragic, as is the case with all combat casualties. But you will also notice that some of those who are particularly outraged by these casualties also couldn’t care less about the hundreds of casualties of Iran and its proxies before this war.

Let’s even set aside the apocalyptic carnage that would be brought upon the United States and its allies if — God forbid — Iran obtained nuclear weapon capabilities. It is undeniable that Iran’s proudly-declared “Death to America” policy has brought death to Americans since the Iranian revolution in 1979. Examples include the bombing of both the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983 — killing hundreds of Americans — the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia — killing 19 Americans and wounding hundreds more — and the roadside bombing campaigns by Iran-backed insurgent groups in Iraq that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of American troops.

The idea that Americans haven’t been impacted by Iran’s regime of terror is debunked solely by the attacks of October 7, 2023 by Iran-backed Hamas. Tucker Carlson may have described the attack as a “foreign tragedy” over which “some commentators” were being disproportionately emotional, but it was a “foreign tragedy” in which Americans were murdered and kidnapped.

Was their “foreign” status imposed by their tiny hats?

There are, of course, good reasons to oppose this war, but the idea that Iran poses no threat to the United States or its citizens is not one of them. Not only that, the argument that any and all military action against Iran is unquestionably unjustified is nothing but a disgusting expression of disrespect for every American citizen that has been wounded, brutalized, or murdered by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Share

Yes, according to these knuckle-draggers, Israel manipulated President Donald Trump (of all people) into launching a military assault on a country whose slogan just happens to be “Death to America” and is responsible for the death of hundreds, if not thousands, of American citizens since 1979.

Trump, the man who has spent his entire life doing precisely what he wants, where he wants, and when he wants, no matter the consequences, was manipulated by Israel into doing something he didn’t want to do?

How absurd.

Thank you for reading my latest syndicated column! Please consider joining our growing community by subscribing:

Subscribe now

Not only that, but if Israel is so monumentally powerful in its talents of manipulation that they managed to drag Trump and the United States military into war ... why did they wait so long? After all, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has wanted to destroy the Iranian regime for his entire political career, but he waited until Trump’s second term — after his third election — to start calling the shots?

And why bother waiting for Trump’s second term when they had President Joe Biden — a corpse with a facelift who couldn’t remember his own name — in the White House for four years? Is Israel so all-powerful that they can treat Trump like a puppet, but so totally weak that they couldn’t get Biden to fire off a few missiles?

At its core, intentionally or otherwise, all of this is built on one thing: anti-Semitism. Yes, Jew-hatred is the motivation behind the patently ridiculous claim that the Jewish state of Israel is dragging Trump kicking and screaming into war.

This reminds me of a speech by the late Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Jonathan Sacks, during a speech on anti-Semitism:

“It seems to me that if you actually ask, ‘What is anti-Semitism? What do anti-Semites believe?’ you will immediately see that the answer is a series of contradictions. Jews were hated in the 19th century because they were rich and because they were poor, because they were capitalists and because they were communists. Because they kept to themselves, and because they infiltrated everywhere.”

This same contradiction has returned, under the guise of anti-Zionism, in which Israel is both powerful and weak at precisely the same time.

By all means, oppose this war. There are plenty of valid reasons against it — including the support of Congress which, yet again, has been ignored — but if your argument is built on the premise that we Jews are dragging you and your children into yet another war? All you’ve done is recycle a centuries-old hate that is as nonsensical now as it was then.

Share

Why? Well, because she is, apparently, woke.

For those who just don’t get it, let me explain.

In the world of sports in which Alysa Liu is thriving, we (the big bad conservatives) simply don’t care about your politics if you are proudly representing our great nation — which Liu undoubtedly is — and you leave your politics at the door — which Liu undoubtedly did. We are celebrating Liu regardless of her politics, because her political beliefs are irrelevant when we’re busy watching the world’s premier sporting event.

This isn’t a debate stage; it’s a skating rink. They’re easy to tell apart, not least of all because one is covered in ice.

Thank you for reading my latest syndicated column! Please consider joining our growing community by subscribing:

Subscribe now

This might sound shocking, but for us, politics isn’t primary. We don’t hungrily seek out a totalizing form of politics in which our beliefs are forcibly infused into every single element of our lives. That’s what the left does, which is precisely why they cannot possibly understand how we could possibly cheer on someone who is “woke.”

Consider perhaps the right’s most widely criticized person in sports in recent years: Colin Kaepernick. Despite what we were told, he wasn’t condemned because he is a Black quarterback (hardly an unusual attribute in the NFL), or even because of what he believed (no matter how absurdly ignorant or racist his views on modern-day America were). No, it’s because he dragged his politics into the world of football, leveraging his political beliefs to garner fame and fortune while his career started to circle the drain. Even if Liu and Kaepernick had exactly the same political beliefs, which they almost certainly do not, the crucial detail is that Liu didn’t show up to the Olympics wearing socks depicting police officers as pigs.

Moreover, let’s consider the response on the left if Alysa Liu was a dreaded MAGA supporter. Suddenly, she’d be the ultimate personification of evil, and we would be inundated with claims that skating was somehow institutionally racist, sexist and transphobic, with Liu’s presence at the Olympics alone making countless people feel just so unsafe.

Of course the people who would rather die than celebrate someone who voted for Trump could never understand how we could celebrate someone who didn’t. The right doesn’t care about your politics if you don’t force it down our throats when we want to enjoy sports. The left cares about nothing else.

And let’s not forget the red elephant in the room: Eileen Gu, the traitorous agent of the Chinese Communist Party who is competing on behalf of China despite being born and raised in the United States. She’s actively being celebrated by the same people who cannot believe that we — conservatives — are instead celebrating Alysa Liu, whose father escaped communist China after participating in the 1988 Tiananmen Square protests.

If politics is all that matters — as we are repeatedly told — then I’m going to spend my time cheering on the patriotic Americans representing us on the world stage, regardless of who they vote for. They’re what makes this country great, not some pseudo-celebrity who is bought and paid for by a bunch of evil communists.

It’s really that simple.

Share

One of the countless terrible things about the podcast manosphere that has infected our eardrums in recent years is the ridiculous pretense that the gaggle of knuckle-draggers who professionally masquerade as, like, really deep thinkers are in any way deserving of our respect as manly men who are manly for saying manly things that no-one else will say, because they’re not manly.

Whether it’s Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes, or Amrou Fudl — the Sudanese-American propagandist who goes by Myron Gaines — we’re supposed to pretend this collection of anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-reason mouthpieces are somehow brave for maintaining their grift.

But among this crowd, there is undeniably no-one worse than Tucker Carlson, the man who has spent the last few years endlessly spreading anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-Jewish propaganda on behalf of Russia, Qatar, and the demons whispering into his ear at night, all while claiming that no-one is allowed to even talk about the Jews.

Join the community and support our mission by becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

The latest example? “Tucker Carlson ‘DETAINED’ in Israel,” Phillip Nieto’s headline declared for The Daily Mail. “Journalist ‘dragged into interrogation room’ as explosive interview sparks diplomatic firestorm.”

“Conservative podcasting titan Tucker Carlson said he and his staff were detained in Israel on Wednesday following an interview with Donald Trump’s ambassador to the country,” Nieto dribbled, before detailing Carlson’s account of the oh-so-traumatic events in which his passport was “confiscated,” and his colleague was “hauled” away.

Oh my goodness, how terrible…except it didn’t happen, with the Israeli government, U.S. ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, and video footage (with Tucker Carlson appearing to even pose for photos with a security guard in a private security area) all debunking perhaps the most ridiculous headline of all time. The detention Carlson “exclusively told the Daily Mail”? It’s called passport control, meaning that every single one of us has been DETAINED at every international border we have ever crossed.

It’s obvious that Carlson planted this story — to a former employee of the outlet he founded, The Daily Caller, no less — to fuel his ongoing fever-dream that Israel is a combination of Voldemort, Thanos, and Judas. And it’s hardly surprising, given he — after arguing that anyone who has any interest in foreign policy is anti-American and doesn’t care about American citizens who die of fentanyl — immediately racked up air miles by flying (private, we must presume) to every country except America, including apparently every Muslim nation on the map, to drool over the same countries whose fundamental policy is “death to America.”

Because what’s more America First than that?!

The brutal reality is that this giggling lunatic with a relentless aversion to wearing socks — seriously, the man never wears socks — has cashed in any remaining shame he had left in exchange for midnight DMs from Vladimir Putin and the slave-owning terror-funding despots who run Qatar. In a normal world, Carlson’s self-flagellating performance at a Russian supermarket alone — where he pretended to not understand exchange rates while sniffing Russian bread like he’d been on a no-gluten diet for 30 years — should have ended his career, but somehow, he still has an audience.

What does that mean? Well, that an audience exists for Tucker Carlson, no matter how much he is willing to humiliate himself to get those juicy anti-Jewish clicks. And frankly, that’s more terrifying than anything he’ll ever put out on his show, including George Stephanopoulos’s sister.

Share

For several years, California Governor Gavin Newsom has been spending his time engaged in a bizarre shadow-boxing campaign against various right-wing boogeymen who — in the depths of his imagination — represent obstacles along his path to the White House. Whether it’s having to stare down the infamous poop map during his debate with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, his horrendously awkward foray into the world of podcasting, or his entirely manufactured descent into online trash talking, there is no level of humiliation that will stand in Newsom’s way of destroying the country after destroying San Francisco and then California.

Join the community and support our mission by becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Meanwhile, the strangest part of Newsom’s strategy is to be like Donald Trump, including his obsessive compulsion to post on social media like a deranged teenage girl with nothing to lose. One of many problems with this strategy? Trying to be like Trump is essentially a political Ring of Power that can only be wielded by its one creator, Trump himself, dooming all those who seek to wield it to lives of embarrassment.

If only Gavin Newsom was capable of experiencing embarrassment, or indeed any human emotion.

The latest absurd chapter in this saga? Newsom’s response to Ted Cruz’s accusation that the Californian Governor is “historically illiterate,” with Newsom shrieking: “Ted Cruz calling a dyslexic person illiterate is a new low, even for him.”

Setting aside whether or not Gavin Newsom is dyslexic — perhaps this explains why he didn’t even notice Trump calling him “Gavin Newscum?” — and the fact that Gavin Newsom’s inability to understand the meaning of “historical” being prepended to “illiterate” could indicate that he is indeed illiterate, Newsom’s big mistake here is that this strange embrace of identity politics doesn’t work if you’re trying to be like Trump while crying victim in such an obvious manner.

It just makes you seem…pathetic.

Not only that, self-prescribed victimhood might work on the extremes of the Left, but to the average American, it’s the ultimate electoral turn-off. Joe Biden couldn’t mask his mental collapse behind “but he has a stutter,” and Gavin Newsom’s attempt to hide behind sudden-onset-dyslexia is going to be just as unsuccessful.

At the root of it all, what Gavin Newsom — and his fellow psychopathic comrades — will never understand is that Donald Trump’s personality (whether you like him or not) is authentic, and the American voter can spot Newsom’s utterly inauthentic and clownish attempt at authenticity from a mile away. Trump might lie — as do all politicians — but when he pulls on a McDonald’s uniform, chats with members of our military, or fires off a tweet at 3 in the morning, we all know we’re getting the real Trump — spray-tanned warts and all.

Unfortunately for Gavin Newsom, there is no “real” Gavin Newsom. To paraphrase American Psycho: “There is an idea of a Gavin Newsom; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable…I am simply not there.”

And no matter how hard Gavin Newsom tries, he is simply not there.

Ian Haworth is a syndicated columnist. You can find his work on Substack.

Share

In an ideal world, a truly just justice system is built upon a platform of absolute objectivity and absolute equality. But, since we clearly live in a world that is far from ideal, justice is routinely doled out by a Lady Justice whose blindfold has been replaced with blinkers, adjusted as needed by the political players in the shadows. Worse, the scales held aloft are weighed down by our society’s widespread and almost bloodthirsty desire for vengeance, in which justifiable calls for accountability skip the frustrating and yet entirely necessary step of due process.

A particularly uncomfortable example of this issue is the treatment of the so-called Epstein files, with a never-ending demand for the release of every single document collected by every single law enforcement agency that may have come within 1,000 miles of Jeffrey Epstein. This is not to say — of course — that a certain sprinkling of human filth throughout Epstein’s sordid orbit should escape justice. No, it is to say that due process still matters, and especially in the case where the mob demands justice, no matter the cost.

And right now, the mob is demanding justice, no matter the cost.

By releasing document after document, not only have victims been needlessly exposed without their consent, but we also risk applying guilt by association to anyone for the sole crime of simply being named in the files — a door that, once opened, cannot be closed. While it remains unquestionably true that many of those named in the files are, at the very least, examples of the immoral depravity that continues to fester in our society, is the casual reader of snippets of these files equipped to apply objective judgment within the confines of the law, and set aside judgment for those who do not meet this legal threshold?

No, they are not, and yet we are skipping over the very protections provided to all citizens — good and bad, moral and immoral — regardless of pesky things such as lack of evidence.

The fetishization of online sleuthery may have convinced your average internet user that they are a one-person investigation team capable of uncovering even the deepest conspiracy, but in reality, waterboarding ourselves with context-free documents — themselves dripping in innuendo, implication or irrelevance — does nothing to achieve true justice and does even less to protect the innocent.

Consider our society’s response during the MeToo era, in which accusations alone, along with associations with those accused, were sufficient to dole out mob justice. How many were incorrectly tarred and feathered when due process was sidelined in favor of rumor and one-sided assumptions that we should “believe all women”?

Our world is full of evil and wrongdoing, and we should certainly want justice to be served to those responsible for it. But justice applies both to the guilty and the innocent, with the guilty proven so in a court of law. Skipping the need for proof and instead combing through an endless stream of documents relating to Epstein in search of a cherry-picked perpetrator might yield some results...but at what cost?

Thank you for reading my latest syndicated column! Please consider joining our growing community by subscribing:

Subscribe now

The Trump administration is officially backing down in Minneapolis and Minnesota, after White House border czar — and one of the few remaining public-facing grownups in Trump’s arsenal — Tom Homan announced that “Operation Metro Surge is ending.” While some levels of immigration enforcement — whether federal or state it remains unclear — will remain, and despite Homan’s claim of supposed enforcement victories, there’s only one way to describe this decision: a massive L for the Trump administration.

Join the community and support our mission by becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

In the immediate short-term, this decision is somewhat understandable, given that polling has indicated a collapse in public support when it comes to Trump’s most concrete and consistent policy: immigration and border control. Now, almost half of Americans “strongly disapprove of how Trump has handled border security and immigration,” with these numbers being just 38% last summer and 34% last April. Of course these sorts of poll numbers are going to set off alarm bells in the White House, with the reflex response being to simply run away from the problem, hoping that the poll numbers will slowly recover.

But that’s not how any of this works. Why? Well, if we are to reasonably assume that this implosion in public support for Trump’s immigration strategy was caused by the response to the deaths of two ICE protesters in Minneapolis, then we should understand the timeline here.

Operations in Minneapolis — and specifically Minnesota — only accelerated in the first place because the Trump administration and the influencer-obsessed Kristi Noem and her Department of Homeland Security hoped to cynically capitalize on the short-lived viral pseudo-investigation into allegedly fraudulent Somali daycare centers, as if we had suddenly uncovered completely unknown — and un-litigated — acts of fraud that could only be solved by an influx of immigration control officers.

But while such an influx was undeniably cynical — motivated by political hunger more than anything else — once the horse had bolted, the job had to be finished. By withdrawing now — cowering behind pathetic claims of victory — the Trump administration is doing one thing and one thing only: providing the radical Left with a blueprint to replicate in left-wing cities and states across the country.

The pattern here is clear: foment agitation and mob violence by comparing federal law enforcement officers to the Nazi secret police and illegal immigrants to Jews during the Holocaust, thereby driving enraged and unstable citizens into harm’s way by encouraging them to engage in violent protest and obstruction, and then leveraging the eventual and unfortunately inevitable deadly results as evidence that only further agitation and mob violence can vanquish the Nazi-esque ICE and their Hitler-esque overlords.

It worked in Minneapolis, so why wouldn’t it work elsewhere?

Again, none of this is to suggest that the administration’s decision to throw all of its eggs into the Minneapolis basket was a good — even entirely justifiable — move. But since we aren’t equipped with the ability to time travel, the administration was faced with just two remaining choices: finish the job, or run away.

This time, they ran away, and don’t think that other blue cities and states didn’t notice

Share

Skip forward to 1:23:00 for my segment:

To support my work, please consider upgrading your subscription!

Subscribe now

To support my work, please consider upgrading your subscription!

Subscribe now

This week, some of our best and brightest journalists in the field of left-wing propaganda faced something even more terrifying than front-row seats to the Melania documentary followed by a meet-and-greet with Donald Trump himself: they were fired from their jobs, with The Washington Post announcing it would be laying off one-third of its workforce as part of its ridiculously selfish bid to stay afloat.

Now, if you were to look at other left-wing propaganda journalists who (for now) remain employed, you’d think this was the worst news in the world. “The Murder of The Washington Post,” wrote The Atlantic’s Ashley Parker, “Jeff Bezos Killed the Washington Post,” declared Slate’s Alex Kirshner, while MS NOW — formerly MSNBC — published Zeeshan Aleem’s opinion column titled: “The Washington Post bloodletting symbolizes our great media crisis.”

But these responses seem to exemplify the essence of calm compared to former employees who now find themselves jobless, including launching protests outside their former office chanting “Who makes the Post? We do!” while a former Ukraine correspondent tweeted, “I was just laid off by The Washington Post in the middle of a warzone. I have no words. I’m devastated.”

You think being a Ukrainian civilian is bad? Try being a journalist!

Join the community and support our mission by becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Look, you should never mock an entire group of people for losing their job. Many of these now out-of-work journalists have families, bills, and mortgages. But here’s the thing: so do millions of Americans whom this very journalistic class didn’t give two damns about during, for example, the widespread loss of jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic or Joe Biden’s voluntary destruction of the economy. Because when millions of non-journalist Americans lose their jobs, it’s just an economic readjustment, or a statistical blip, or an opportunity for those dumb blue-collar knuckle-draggers to “learn to code.”

While I am sorry for those who just lost their job, my sympathy is not just limited by their collective disdain for other Americans who have faced far worse situations than being fired from a failing newspaper. No, it cuts to the heart of what is wrong with the elitism of the pseudo-intellectual journo-activist class itself, because these people actually think they have a right to a job, that no matter the fate of their employers, they have a God-given right to receive a paycheck for their services.

Sorry, that’s not how any of this works.

I’ve been fired before. Most of us have. This is America. People are fired all the time. Sometimes it’s because the company is struggling, sometimes it’s because of a malicious co-worker, sometimes it’s because your manager was an inept megalomaniac, and sometimes, people are fired because they’re not good at their job.

Adults respond to this by putting their nose to the grindstone and finding employment elsewhere. Children respond by having a tantrum for losing their allowance while blaming the owner of their former company for having the audacity to not drive their business into the ground.

Let alone employing the same journalists who brought us the gem-to-end-all-gems: “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.”

I’m sorry you were fired, but it’s because you suck and you were making The Washington Post suck. Grow up.

Share

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away — 2024 to be precise — the Democratic Party bypassed the most fundamental notions of democracy to instill Kamala Harris as their presidential candidate before attempting to force her upon the American people. Unsurprisingly, the American people responded with a resounding no, at least in part thanks to the sheer level of disingenuous cringe that surrounded her, much like a green fog surrounds a cartoon skunk.

Join the community and support our mission by becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Now, most public figures with even the smallest scrap of shame would have accepted this defeat and gracefully retreated into obscurity. But, as we are seeing, this doesn’t include Kamala Harris, who is bizarrely attempting to relaunch herself as the savior of the Democratic Party in 2028. However, she faces the same problem of overwhelming cringe, with the latest laughable example being her attempt to leverage the youth. Because, you see, she’s super hip. Like, really.

“Madame Vice President, what’s going on with Kamala HQ?” the grinning Harris is asked, before delivering a definitely-not-scripted announcement of a “new Gen-Z led progressive content hub”:

“Well, I’m so glad you asked. I have good news! So, Kamala HQ is turning into Headquarters, and it’s where you can go online to get basically the latest of what’s going on, and also meet and revisit with some of our great courageous leaders, be they elected leaders, community leaders, civic leaders, faith leaders, young leaders. I’m really excited about it. So stay engaged, and I’ll see you out there. Thank you.”

Honestly, this is the best example of Steve Buscemi’s “How do you do, fellow kids?” meme I’ve ever seen…

Look, the problem at the center of this is twofold. First, it’s yet another example of the unbelievable pandering that politicians engage in every single time they’re looking to garner support from a certain category of person. They’ll suddenly scarf down collard greens, or change their accent, or randomly play Despacito on stage, all because they think we can be so cheaply bought. Sometimes, unfortunately, they’re right. And this video from Kamala Harris — who is a Boomer! — is yet another example, and at this point, she might as well dance the macarena and host a debate over which member of NSYNC is the most fetch.

But the second problem cuts to the heart of just how out of touch politicians like Kamala Harris have become. Gen-Z roughly includes those born between 1997 and 2012, meaning that — as of 2026 — they range from mid-teens to mid-twenties, growing up in a fully-online world made worse by the fact that many of their formative years were spent under government-imposed lockdown during which their social education was diluted through Zoom. Thanks to this level of online literacy, for all their faults, Gen-Z are a better judge of authenticity than any other generation, and can smell performative and manipulative nonsense from a mile away. This video is patronising to its core, and is precisely the reason so many young people despise politicians and politics.

In a cynical world, we might want Kamala Harris to keep this up, as bad news for the Democrats is good news for conservatives. But in a world where we want our political discourse to improve, and for the younger generations to become politically engaged, treating them like shallow and foolish children is bad for all of us.

After all, it’s hard to be Gen-Z led when your leader is not Gen-Z, not a Millennial, and not even Gen X, but a sixty-year old cackling maniac Boomer with a great skincare routine, wardrobe, and dentist who probably still uses AOL Messenger.

Read my Washington Examiner columns here.

This year, too many commentators — many of whom have about as much football knowledge as Tim Walz, who famously warned that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez “could run a mean pick 6” — went into overdrive in their attempt to spark a backlash against halftime performer Bad Bunny.

Support my work as an independent political commentator by becoming a paid subscriber to my Substack.

Subscribe now

I’ll confess, I had no idea who Bad Bunny is. Honestly, I still don’t. For all I know, he’s a distant relation of Bugs Bunny, the Energizer Bunny or the Easter Bunny, but apparently he’s very popular, delivering a performance on Sunday that garnered millions of additional views for the NFL and sent the right-wing influencer class into a manic state.

Sure, it’s fine to think that the performance was good or bad, and it’s even fine to calmly critique obvious political messages within the performance, such as the conflation of “God Bless America” with the entire Western hemisphere, as if we share anything with Venezuela, Mexico or — heaven forfend — Canada. It’s also fine, by the way, to not care at all. But if your sole focus on Monday morning is not the game but the halftime show, I’m sorry, you’re not a serious person, and certainly not a sports fan.

And if Bad Bunny’s selection as halftime performer did send you into a social media fury, it’s important to understand that your expression of outrage only rewards the NFL for their decision.

The National Football League’s primary goal is to make professional football as profitable as possible, and the purpose of the halftime show is to expand their audience in order to expand their profit base. The NFL has absolutely nothing to gain from a halftime performance that appeals only to people who are already tuning in for the football, while the NFL has everything to gain from a halftime performance that appeals to people who couldn’t care less about whether the Patriots or the Seahawks even showed up to the game.

To be fair, one of them didn’t...

Then there’s the issue of marketing. It is in the NFL’s best interest to not only pick a performer who will bring in a new audience, but to navigate the tightrope of controversy to ensure that the reliable online outrage machine will provide them with millions of dollars of free advertising.

Time after time, controversy is intentionally manufactured in order to spark a predictable reaction, and Bad Bunny was no different. So, if you despise Bad Bunny and his performance, do you think making him and his performance go viral on social media hurt or helped the effort to convince the NFL to choose someone else?

No, in the future, if you want halftime performers that — for example — have a single English lyric, resist the temptation to flood the internet with your fury, because as long as it’s true that any attention is good attention, your fury is seen as nothing more than dollar signs for the NFL.

Read my syndicated columns with Creators here.

The people running our institutions don’t care about us, the media doesn’t tell us the truth, and an elite class treats ordinary hardworking Americans like they’re the problem.

This Substack community is here to say: no.

Subscribe now

I’m Ian Ha…

Read more

“If you do with an award tonight, don’t use it as a political platform to make a political speech,” Ricky Gervais advised the audience at the Golden Globes award ceremony in 2020. “You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.”

Excellent advice that has, unfortunately, been completely ignored by celebrities who have instead done the opposite, with the glitzy world of the entertainment elite engaging an endless display of the latest thing, applauding one another for their pathetic and shallow virtue signaling as they demonstrate to one another that they are on the right side of history.

Black Lives Matter, they declare, as they wear outfits inspired by the Ukrainian flag, or adorn themselves with red-handed badges — a decades-old image rooted in not only in bloodthirsty anti-Semitic assaults on Jews in Iraq during the Farhud, but the infamous image of a Palestinian who had just murdered two Israelis during the Second Intifada displaying his bloody hands to joyful mob — in supposed solidarity with the people of Gaza.

Now, it’s f*** ICE, and there’s no better example of the absurdity of this performative nonsense than Billie Eilish and her acceptance speech at this year’s Grammy, which went beyond their latest rallying cry of “f*** ICE” and deep into the world of anti-sovereignty propaganda.

Support my work as an independent political commentator by becoming a paid subscriber to my Substack.

Subscribe now

Wearing an “ICE OUT” pin — because if you’re not wearing a pin, do you even care about anything? — Eilish declared that “No-one is illegal on stolen land,” and that “I feel really hopeful in this room, and I feel like we need to keep fighting and speaking up and protesting. Our voices really do matter, and the people matter.”

Except…Eilish obviously doesn’t believe this. Not at all. Immediately after the ceremony, she was chauffeured back to her multi-million dollar mansion which is surrounded by impenetrable security fences alongside her personal security detail. If she truly believed that her home was built on stolen land…could she not just give it back?

What about the fact that Eilish declared that “no-one is illegal on stolen land” while maintaining a multi-year restraining order against an obsessed fan who has been stalking her? Surely, on stolen land, he has every right to be as close as he wants to Eilish, right?

To demonstrate quite how laughable the latest crowd has become over their latest thing, consider this: would any one of them welcome an illegal immigrant of our choosing into their home (or even their neighborhood) based on the apparent fact that no-one is illegal on stolen land? Would they welcome, with open arms, a murderer? A rapist? A drug dealer? A human trafficker? An abuser of women and children?

No, of course they wouldn’t. They’d enforce the Martha’s Vineyard treatment, deporting them before you can say “ICE.” But — from positions of wealth and safety, deep within their mansions and behind their security — they think you should.

Billie Eilish, if you think “no-one is illegal on stolen land,” you can start by giving your home and your cash and your awards to a random Native American from whom it apparently was stolen. If not, shut up.

Read my Washington Examiner columns here.

While extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity are certainly important variables to consider, Biden’s repeated inclusion of sex and skin color essentially made his later decision — Ketanji Brown Jackson — the Karine Jean-Pierre of the Supreme Court, with her almost constant inability to understand the arguments being presented to her concealed behind declarations of her being oh-so-historic.

Support my work as an independent political commentator by becoming a paid subscriber to my Substack.

Subscribe now

What makes matters worse — beyond the fact that Jackson isn’t very good at her job — is that she is constantly engaging in behavior that flies in the face of the character and integrity lauded by Biden just a few years ago.

I’m not just talking about her appearance in a Broadway musical, or her place on The New York Times’ “93 Most Stylish People of 2022” list. No, this time I’m talking about her ridiculous appearance at the Grammy Awards after being nominated for an award for best audio book, narration and storytelling for her memoir, “Lovely One” and her gleeful embrace of a ceremony whose theme may as well have been “f*** ICE.”

Look, moronic celebrities are allowed to have whatever ridiculous political views they want — including the notion that American law enforcement is systemically racist, that Hamas are peace-loving freedom fighters, or that the enforcement of a sovereign nation’s borders is akin to Nazi Germany — but Ketanji Brown Jackson is not a celebrity. She is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and frankly, it’s about time she acted like it.

Was she in any way supportive of the anti-ICE tirade that went on for several hours? Who knows. But regardless, it is utterly inappropriate for one of the highest judicial authorities in the nation to be gallivanting around in a politicized environment that — at best — threatens the notion that her judgement is in any way objective.

After all, it’s hardly a surprise that this year’s Grammy awards were hyper-focused on the most controversial topic in the country, let alone one the fact that immigration-related cases continue flooding up the steps of the Supreme Court. Ketanji Brown Jackson might not understand oral arguments, but surely she understands that this is a really, really bad look?

There are two options here and neither are good. Either Jackson didn’t understand the message her attendance would send — implying stunning ineptitude and wildly poor judgement — or Jackson understood the implications fully ... and went along anyway, elated grin ready to shine.

In a country that is inundated and obsessed with celebrity, the Supreme Court should be one of the few places where some level of solemnity remains. With that in mind, what we really don’t need is Ketanji Brown Jackson showing up with her latest audiobook and her favorite tutu to deliver a rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream.”

Read my syndicated columns with Creators here.

It’s not a coincidence that Minneapolis has become the epicenter of not one but two political and cultural eruptions. The first was in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd in 2020, sparking months of protests, riots, and violence across the country under the flimsy banner of Black Lives Matter. The second is in the aftermath of two deaths — Renee Good and Alex Pretti — who were both shot and killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents this month.

While both cases have distinct characteristics — Good was unarmed and was shot and killed while driving her vehicle towards federal officers, while Pretti was armed and was shot and killed during a chaotic arrest attempt — they have been lumped together as practically the same victim, as if the only variable that matters is their common alleged victimizer: ICE.

Support my work as an independent political commentator by becoming a paid subscriber to my Substack.

Subscribe now

Tensions continue to rise in Minneapolis — and across the state — thanks to the combined efforts of on-the-street activists and Democratic Party politicians who have engaged in a non-stop propaganda campaign to liken Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, the Republican Party to the Nazis, and ICE to the Gestapo. Meanwhile, tensions have also been ratcheted up on the Right, with “DHS Barbie” Kristi Noem and other leading figures declaring — without evidence or investigation — that Pretti was akin to a domestic terrorist.

Look, it’s obvious that the temperature needs to be turned down. But it also matters how the temperature is turned down.

According to The Associated Press, for example, Donald Trump — after sending Tom Homan to Minnesota to take over from Kristi Noem’s circus act — “seemed to signal a willingness to ease tensions.” But it matters hugely what that entails, because make no mistake: Trump should absolutely not — under quite literally any circumstances — take a backwards step in Minnesota

Was the decision to hyper-focus ICE efforts on Minnesota — and Minneapolis specifically — at least partly a political clickbait performance in response to the viral Somali fraud scandal? Absolutely. But regardless, two things are true. Firstly, illegal immigration is a problem in Minnesota. Second, the horse has already bolted, ICE is on the ground, and they have to finish what they started.

Obviously, this is far from a call for ICE to engage in unnecessary and unaccountable acts of violence while fulfilling their duty. Instead, it is a call for ICE to continue their important and dangerous mission in arresting and deporting illegal immigrants — all of whom, by definition, are criminals — without hesitation.

The purpose of the riled up mob in Minneapolis today is exactly the same as in 2020. With Democrats egging them on from the bleachers, the goal is to leverage threats of violence — or, failing that, actual violence — to pressure local, state, or federal law enforcement into deciding that it’s simply not worth enforcing the law.

Given that this largely succeeded in 2020, why wouldn’t they try it again now?!

Trump cannot bend, let alone break, on this. To do otherwise would signal to the mob that the law is subjective, not objective, and based solely on how outraged a very vocal minority of far-Left agitators have become.

If we sacrifice the law to tantrums, then we sacrifice the law forever. Hold firm, Donald Trump, hold firm.

Read my Washington Examiner columns here.

This has nothing to do with the undeniable fact that the enforcement of immigration laws and border control by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement is absolutely uncontroversial, nor the individual cases in which such enforcement meets varying forms of violent resistance and results in tragic instances of further violence. This doesn’t even have anything to do with the case of Alex Pretti, given that we should all wait for an investigation to be completed before rushing to our predetermined conclusion based on a handful of what I think are AI-generated images and our gut feeling.

No, the particular concern here for Republicans is the bizarre anti-Second Amendment rhetoric of the Trump administration as they scramble to handle the killing of Alex Pretti as horrendously as possible by immediately smearing his actions and intentions — something an investigation is supposed to do — while pointing to his legal possession of a firearm as the problem.

Support my work as an independent political commentator by becoming a paid subscriber to my Substack.

Subscribe now

“At 9:05 AM CT, as DHS law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted operation in Minneapolis against an illegal alien wanted for violent assault, an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, seen here,” the Department of Homeland Security announced on social media, just a few hours after the incident, soon adding that “The suspect also had 2 magazines and no ID — this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

“The suspect also had two loaded magazines and no accessible ID,” Border Control Chief Greg Bovino said. “This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

“I don’t know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign,” argued the gun-toting, family-dog-shooting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, while her boss, President Donald Trump, declared that “You can’t have guns. You can’t walk in with guns.”

I’m sorry, what?

Last time I checked, this was the United States of America, where we have that little thing called the Second Amendment that Republicans — which supposedly includes Donald Trump and his walking Botox overdose of a DHS secretary — care about more than almost anything else.

Last time I checked, when conservatives — the most notable example being Kyle Rittenhouse — attend protests while armed, these same Republicans would defend their unquestionable right under the Second Amendment to do so.

And from what we can tell, Pretti was carrying a legally owned firearm, and carrying single 9 mm handgun with additional loaded magazines is hardly indicative of a would-be domestic terrorist, unless there are tens of millions of would-be domestic terrorists marching the streets on any given day in the United States. That’s not to say that Pretti wasn’t looking to kill federal officers, or that he didn’t brandish his weapon or use his weapon in a threatening manner that caused an agent to fear for their life. But that’s what an investigation is for!

Yes, the left is actively trying to inflame tensions — including Tim Walz, who is comparing any enforcement of federal law to Nazi Germany — but that doesn’t excuse the right from skipping a thorough investigation that first uncovers the facts while turning its back on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as part of their reflexive desire to counter such a propaganda war.

Be the adults in the room. That’s all we’re asking. And in the meantime, yes, we can have guns. This is America.

Read my syndicated columns with Creators here.