President Trump’s endorsement of Steve Hilton for governor of California earlier this month has sent the Democratic establishment into predictable convulsions. Katie Porter, one of the leading Democratic hopefuls, declared that the race now boils down to a stark choice: “California values against MAGA.” Others called Hilton a “Trump puppet.” The implication is clear: Any candidate endorsed by President Trump is a dangerous interloper foisting flyover-country extremism on the enlightened progressive utopia that is modern California. One wonders what these “California values” actually are. The term is invoked with the same pious certainty once reserved for the Ten Commandments, yet the state it supposedly defines is America’s poster child for policy-induced decline. Under one-party Democratic rule (with legislative majorities dating back decades and a full trifecta since 2011), California boasts the highest state income tax in the country, the highest gas prices, and among the most punitive regulations on business and housing. It leads the nation in homelessness while spending billions with little visible result.  Sanctuary policies shield illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement, even as American citizens in working-class neighborhoods bear the brunt of the resulting crime and strained social services.  California’s aggressive green energy ambition has delivered rolling blackouts, sky-high utility bills, and dangerous dependence on foreign oil — all while the state’s own refining capacity collapses.  Businesses and middle-class families flee by the hundreds of thousands to Texas, Florida, and Nevada, voting with their U-Haul trailers against the very “values” Democrats insist define the state. These are not the values that built California. The Golden State was forged by pioneers, Dust Bowl refugees, Okie farmers, aerospace engineers, and Hollywood dreamers who understood that merit, risk, and reward — not redistribution and guilt — were the engines of prosperity.  It was the state of the Gold Rush, the great Central Valley farmlands, and the Southern California defense plants that helped win World War II, and the Silicon Valley garages where tinkerers became titans.  Those California values prized self-reliance, law and order, affordable energy, secure borders, and the right of ordinary people to raise families without being priced out or preyed upon. They were, in short, what we now call MAGA values — though the acronym is new, the principles are as old as the Republic itself. Steve Hilton, a naturalized American citizen who has lived and worked in California for years, has spent the better part of the last decade documenting precisely how far the state has fallen from those founding virtues. A former advisor to British Prime Minister David Cameron, he is no carpetbagging ideologue but a clear-eyed observer of progressive governance in action.  He has watched, as Trump noted, while this once-great state “has gone to Hell.” Hilton’s platform — lower taxes, housing deregulation, crackdowns on crime and vagrancy, energy realism, and an end to one-party complacency — represents a return to the practical, results-oriented governance that made California the envy of the world, not its punchline. Democrats’ frantic reframing is less about substance than self-preservation. Their “California values” are the values of coastal elites ensconced in gated enclaves in Atherton, Malibu, or Beverly Hills — people who send their children to private schools, employ private security, and lecture the rest of us about compassion while the working poor and middle class absorb the consequences of their experiments.  The same politicians who champion open borders fly private jets to climate summits. The same officials who decry “systemic racism” oversee cities where Black and Hispanic residents suffer the highest rates of violent crime. The rhetoric of “values” is simply the latest euphemism for preserving a status quo that has enriched the few while beggaring the many. Trump’s endorsement signals that the fight for California is now a national priority. A state that produces more than a tenth of the nation’s GDP, that once symbolized American dynamism, cannot be written off as a lost cause. If Hilton prevails in the June top-two primary and carries the fight into November, he will do so with the explicit backing of a president who has already begun reversing the national decline Democrats spent years accelerating. Federal partnership on border security, energy production, and infrastructure —precisely what Sacramento has rejected — could begin the long work of restoration. The Democrats’ panic is understandable. For years they have governed without serious opposition, confident that demographic destiny and cultural inertia would keep their machine humming.  Trump’s intervention and Hilton’s candidacy threaten to expose the hollowness of their claims. The real choice before California voters is not between “California values” and some alien MAGA ideology; It is between the values that are emptying the state of its people, businesses, and hope, and the values that once made it the greatest state in the Union.  The post The ‘California Values’ That Ruined California appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Elon Musk on Friday promoted a film about Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier’s fight against Marxist ideas invading the U.S. military, and the X post has garnered more than 15 million views so far. “Call Sign Courage: The Matt Lohmeier Story,” a documentary produced with support from The Heritage Foundation, highlights Lohmeier’s efforts to advocate for a merit-based military in opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion policies promoted by the Biden administration. In prior years, Lohmeier publicly spoke out against what he characterized as neo-Marxist ideology in military training, the use of critical race theory as an institutional framework, the politicization of the armed forces, authoritarian ideological enforcement, and the erosion of merit-based service. Through public commentary and his book, Lohmeier, a former Air Force pilot turned Space Force commander, called for a return to constitutional loyalty, individual moral courage, free expression, unity, and merit-based leadership within the military. The film also features remarks from top Biden-appointed defense officials, including former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, in which they defended the inclusion of such concepts in the armed forces. “We have a diversity, equity, and inclusion focus in the military,” Austin told the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2021. “I personally find it offensive that we are accusing the United States military … of being ‘woke’ because we are studying some theories that are out there,” Milley said during a House Armed Services Committee hearing that same month. According to the film, Lohmeier’s resistance led to his removal from command — he was fired without pension under the Biden administration. The film’s website states that he was “made a public example of as a non-compliant officer.” Beyond career repercussions, the documentary also depicts alleged intimidation incidents involving Lohmeier and his family, including reported home invasions during that period. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard described the film as “a story about a love of country, love of God.” “His humility allows for this story to be told in a deeply impactful way,” Gabbard said at an October event at The Heritage Foundation. “You can read articles in a newspaper or online, or hear reporters talk about something—but the real impact of what Matt and his family went through can only be felt when people hear him and see his story for themselves.” Gabbard added that storytelling such as Lohmeier’s has the power “to shape policy and bring about real and lasting change.” As depicted throughout the film, Lohmeier turned his fight against Biden-era policies into a movement aimed at uniting service members and advocating for a return to “merit-based, unified service.” “You look at the expectations that the American people should have of our public institutions—that the people who work there every day should be motivated by service,” Gabbard said. In January 2021, President Donald Trump appointed Lohmeier as the 29th under secretary of the Air Force. The documentary is now available to watch for free on X through Sunday, April 19. The post Elon Musk Promotes Story of Pilot Ousted for Urging Merit-Based Military appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Child care got expensive—more than $13,000 per child, per year.  So many people want government to pay for it. My state just agreed. New York will fund free child care. Yay! But wait … what government does isn’t free. Taxpayers pay. And taxpayers pay more because “government rules have unintended consequences,” says Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women’s Forum.  Washington, D.C. day care teachers must have a degree in Early Childhood Education. That can take two years and cost $22,000. “Of course you’re going to have to pay a lot more,” says Lukas in my new video, “when you’ve asked people to invest tens of thousands of dollars in degrees.” Many government rules are just dumb.  Illinois says providers must offer coins for pay phones. Providers must have “one crib with mattress, sheet, and blanket per infant,” but wait! Illinois also says, “Soft bedding … shall not be used.” Which is it?! Illinois bureaucrats told us their rules are “being updated.” Red states have dumb rules, too. Oklahoma’s regulations specify exact number of items providers must have: two nesting, stacking and interlocking toys per one to two kids, two toddler pounding toys, two support pillows, three squeaky toys, two knobbed puzzles, three wrist or ankle bells … Really. Oklahoma’s regulations go on for 180 pages! “Policymakers talk about the lack of affordable care,” says Lukas, “yet here they are layering on regulations that make it impossible for people to come and fill that need. This pushes good people out of the industry.” It also stops good people from providing in-home care. “In-home day care is often what parents want most,” says Lucas. “Places that most replicate that comfortable, family-supportive environment.” In-home care used to be the most common form of child care, but not anymore. “Regulations make it really hard for someone who has their own kids, who’s already going to be staying at home, to invite other kids to that home,” says Lucas.  Michigan requires a license to take care of even one other child. Getting that license can take six months, and requires CPR training, infectious disease training, child abuse training, a six-hour orientation, an environmental health inspection … “Those rules don’t help kids as much as raise costs,” says Lucas. “Fewer people enter the market, and parents are left with fewer options.” Lukas is raising five kids, but she says the rules would discourage her from ever trying to offer home care. “There are things that no family would ever comply with. I would have to go into my cabinets and find every cereal box and make sure it was in a sealed container … ” Delaware’s regulations say: “Food must be stored in closed or sealed containers … ”  Also, endless government rules don’t guarantee safety. Missouri’s Adventure Learning Center had a license. Teachers there were caught telling 3-year-olds to fight.  Real crooks ignore government rules altogether, as Minnesota’s day care scandal showed. Incompetent government rarely checks. “Here they were,” says Lukas, driving the law-abiding centers out of the day care market, but in the meantime, “funneling millions of taxpayer dollars … letting money flow to those who weren’t providing any care at all.” “There should be no regulations?” I ask. “A background check for a daycare provider is a reasonable requirement, but other than that, I think we really should be trusting parents, not government, to make the decision on what makes sense for their child. … Parents, not government, care the most about kids.” Activists and politicians always think more rules make things better. More often than not, they make things worse. COPYRIGHT 2026 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Little Kids, Big Government appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A district court judge repeatedly shielded the Southern Poverty Law Center from scrutiny during a defamation case and then dismissed a conservative group’s case because it “lacked evidence,” according to the conservative group’s attorneys. Attorneys for the estate of Donald A. King and his organization, the Dustin Inman Society, filed an 81-page brief Thursday asking a higher court to reconsider the case. They claimed that Judge Corey L. Maze of the Northern District of Alabama erred in rejecting their attempts to obtain evidence proving the SPLC acted with actual malice in branding the society an “anti-immigrant hate group.” “The case was decided by stacking four errors,” Harry Mihet, chief litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel and one of DIS’s attorneys, told The Daily Signal in a Friday phone call. “Cutting off discovery, ignoring what the SPLC already knew, twisting the legal standard, and stretching the single-publication rule, until the plaintiffs had no case left. “And so the case was decided, not because there is no evidence available, but because the court did not allow any evidence to be gathered, to show that the SPLC acted with actual malice.” “The case is really about a simple principle: you can’t block discovery, and then win because there’s no evidence,” he added. Critics say the SPLC routinely smears mainstream conservative and Christian groups by placing them on a “hate map” with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan. King, founder of the Dustin Inman Society, sued the center for defamation after it branded his Georgia-based organization—which opposes illegal immigration—an “anti-immigrant hate group.” The SPLC claims that “The Dustin Inman Society, led by D.A. King, poses as an organization concerned about immigration issues, yet focuses on vilifying all immigrants.” In 2011, the SPLC stated that the society was not a “hate group,” but it reversed course and applied the label in 2018. The society’s board includes legal immigrants, and King’s adopted sister is herself a legal immigrant. Judge W. Keith Watkins of the Middle District of Alabama allowed the defamation case to move forward in 2023, but Judge Maze later took the case, and rejected the society’s discovery motions. Alleged Errors The society’s lawyers claim that Maze violated precedent when he denied the society’s request for documents related to SPLC’s internal policies for designating “hate groups,” SPLC’s communications about the society, and materials concerning SPLC’s methodology as applied to other groups in the immigration context. The denial of discovery left behind “a record stripped of the evidence on which defamation plaintiffs depend,” they said, and then the judge “granted summary judgment because that evidence was missing.” The society also claims Maze erred by finding that the statute of limitations prevented the society from obtaining documents related to the SPLC’s decision to brand the society a “hate group” in 2018 and beforehand. “The statute of limitations bars stale claims; it does not bar relevant evidence,” the filing states. The society also faulted the judge for using “wrong legal standards” to analyze the defamation claims. Maze ruled that the society did not have a defamation claim because the SPLC’s definition of “anti-immigrant” meant animus against illegal immigrants, as well as legal ones. But the society’s lawyers say Maze took the SPLC’s definition on faith, rather than asking how a third-party would view the “anti-immigrant” accusation. “A defendant’s self-serving testimony that it believed in the truth of its statements ‘cannot, by itself, defeat summary judgment,'” the brief states, citing precedent. Finally, the judge allegedly shielded the SPLC by finding that the Alabama Supreme Court would view the SPLC’s repeated attack on DIS as a single publication, dating only to a time outside the statute of limitations. The society’s lawyers noted that the Alabama Supreme Court has never ruled in a situation quite like this one, and the single-publication rule arguably does not apply. “The ‘no evidence’ conclusion did not reflect any weakness in [the society’s] case,” the brief argues. “It reflected the cumulative force of four rulings that made the case nearly impossible to prove.” Why Does This Matter? The SPLC has faced renewed scrutiny after the assassination of Charlie Kirk last year. The SPLC gained its reputation by suing Ku Klux Klan groups into bankruptcy, and it now publishes a “hate map” that includes conservative and Christian groups alongside Klan chapters. The SPLC added Turning Point USA, Kirk’s organization, to the “hate map” in May. In 2012, a terrorist used the “hate map” to target the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian nonprofit in Washington, D.C. The SPLC condemned both the Kirk assassination and the attack on FRC, but it has kept both groups on the “hate map.” Last month, FBI Director Kash Patel announced that the bureau had formally severed all ties with the SPLC, which he called a “partisan smear machine.” The post Judge Shielded SPLC From Scrutiny in Groundbreaking Defamation Case: Appeal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The horse race for the 2028 Democratic Party nomination has not begun, but that doesn’t mean some fillies, mares, nags, and mules aren’t starting to make their way toward the dirt track. Good luck finding a thoroughbred. Although the bell won’t sound for another year or so, the race will come upon us as fast as Democrats are running away from Eric Swalwell. The track will be muddy. Primaries always are. And if Democrats hold to form, the race will be fixed. Just ask Bernie Sanders, anybody who ran against Joe Biden in 2020, or anybody who didn’t want Kamala Harris in 2024. Assessing the Track Conditions The contenders will also be facing strong headwinds. The party that has demonstrated a clear dislike of America will be facing an electorate just coming off the high of America 250 and amping up for the 2028 Olympics. “USA! USA! USA!” will trump “No Kings.” Plus, the Democrats have been so consumed by Trump Derangement Syndrome that they’ll be flummoxed running without their Trump blinders on. They can’t run against a man who’s not in the race (and they can’t run against his accomplishments). “Yes, let’s reopen the border! Let’s send crime skyrocketing! Let’s give Iran back its nukes! Let’s get back to chopping off the body parts of children and letting hairy men stomp on girls in sports!” What could they say? “Vote for us because Donald Trump ragged on the Pope”? So right out of the starting gate, the Democrats will be in for a slog. The Racing Sheet Who at this point appears to be considering joining the race? Gavin Newsom is so badly itching to get to the White House it’s a wonder he didn’t join the ballroom construction crew just for the opportunity. Harris just said she’s “thinking about” another run. (Pause for laughter.) Her chances? About the same as her word salads becoming a featured item at Golden Corral. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker isn’t losing weight for the health of it. But is anybody going to place a bet on the politician who’s about to lose the Chicago Bears to Indiana? Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin admits she’s considering a run. The first clue? Her participation in that odious video urging U.S. servicemembers to defy Trump’s orders. Nothing like a call to mutiny to raise your profile among the base. She’s also hanging out in Iowa. And it’s not like she’s there to see the “Field of Dreams” ballfield. Slotkin will hide her CIA spook roots by touting her family’s farming roots. Fun fact: They’re the folks who brought us Ball Park Franks. “Did someone say ‘franks’?” asked Pritzker. Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly has been positioning himself by not only taking part in that mutiny video, which alone should disqualify him from being commander in chief, but through his continuous assaults on Trump. How’d that work out for Stephen Colbert? Fani Willis? Eric Swalwell? Call it the Trump curse, but the loudest enemies of Trump have a history of imploding. Pete Buttigieg might try again. Sorry, Pothole Pete. Democrats tried the DEI thing with Harris. And even Democrats are not going to follow Trump with someone who makes Dylan Mulvaney look like the Marlboro Man.Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer? Her actions during COVID-19 and witch-like aura make her a long shot. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro would be a strong contender, but today’s Democratic Party treats Jews worse than it treats MAGA. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey? No. Just no. If Democrats wanted a tear-soaked drama queen, they’d elect Susan Lucci. Finally, there’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. According to Axios, the little progressive darling has been quietly making organizational moves for a potential run. Don’t underestimate AOC, particularly in the early furloughs. She’s a natural attention-grabber who will suck the oxygen away from lesser candidates. She wields social media skills like Zorro wields a sword. She’s already in the rarified Democrat air of being known by her initials, like JFK, LBJ, RBG … BLM, KKK … She’ll have the Democratic Socialists of America riding her. If they could elect as mayor of New York City a radical Islamist communist who’s barely a U.S. citizen and had nothing on his résumé but a famous mother and failed rap career, imagine what they can do with the charismatic bartender-turned-congresswoman. “Did somebody say ‘bartender’?” asked Harris. And they’re off … toward the debates. Down the Stretch Policy differences mean little in debates. Much more important are the dynamics and visuals. Think back to the 2020 Democratic primary. Tulsi Gabbard destroyed Harris’ campaign in 90 seconds. Not just because she exposed Harris’ atrocious record as California attorney general and San Francisco DA, but because of how Harris fell apart under the attack. She showed off her thin skin and weak chin. Democrats saw it. America saw it. Somehow the autopen missed it. What can we expect during those early debates in 2027, assuming the above named candidates enter? Newsom and AOC will jump to the front of the pack by virtue of their star quality, organization, and name recognition. The other candidates will play supporting roles or be extras. By virtue of being one-two, Newsom and AOC will at some point be positioned next to each other on the debate stage. The tall central-casting candidate from California next to the short girly-girl who pretends to be from the New York hood. As terrible as it may be to say, the simple truth is standing next to Newsom, AOC is going to look like his nanny. “Did somebody say ‘nanny’?” asks Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff. All told, a safe early bet is California Golden Boy to win, Bronx Bartender to place, Pennsylvania Hebrew to show. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Horses Approach the Gate for the 2028 Democrat Primary appeared first on The Daily Signal.