On Sunday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivered a statement to the American public in which he called the U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities an “overwhelming success,” noted that President Trump has not wavered from his long-stated intention to eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapons program, stated bluntly that “American deterrence is back,” and paid tribute to all the members of the American military who participated in Operation Midnight Hammer,” praising them as “warriors.” Hegseth’s statement below: Thank you for joining us this morning. Last night, on President Trump’s orders, U.S. Central Command conducted a precision strike in the middle of the night against three nuclear facilities in Iran: Fordo, Natanz, and Esfahan, in order to destroy or severely degrade Iran’s nuclear program. And as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs will demonstrate, it was an incredible and overwhelming success. The order we received from our Commander-in-Chief was focused; it was powerful, and it was clear. We devastated the Iranian nuclear program, but it’s worth noting the operation did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people. For the entirety of his time office, President Trump has consistently stated for over 10 years that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon.  Full stop. Thanks to President Trump‘s bold and visionary leadership and his commitment to peace through strength, Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been obliterated. Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran‘s nuclear program and none could until President Trump. The operation President Trump planned was bold, and it was brilliant, showing the world that American deterrence is back. When this president speaks the world should listen. And the U.S. military? We can back it up. The most powerful military the world has ever known. No other country on planet Earth could have conducted the operation that the chairman is going to outline this morning. Not even close. Just like Soleimani found out in the first term, Iran found out when POTUS says 60 days that he seeks peace and negotiation, he means 60 days of peace and negotiation, otherwise that nuclear capability will not exist. He meant it. This is not the previous administration; President Trump said no nukes. He seeks peace and Iran should take that path. He sent out a Truth last night saying this: “Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.” Signed, the president of the United States, Donald J Trump. Iran would be smart to heed those words. He said it before, and he means it. I want go to give recognition to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Staff, General Erik Kurilla at CENTCOM, who did a phenomenal job, he and his staff, all of CENTCOM policy. Across the board, this was a joint effort, an across-the-Pentagon effort. I want to recognize pilots who flew those bombers; who flew those fighters; who flew those refuelers: Warriors. I want to recognize the sailors, on those destroyers, in those subs. on those carriers: Warriors. All of them. I want to recognize our soldiers doing air defense, base  defense, QRF: Warriors. All of them. Every American involved in this operation performed flawlessly. And I want to give recognition to our allies in Israel as well. This is a plan that took months and weeks of positioning and preparation so that we could be ready when the president of the United States called. It took a great deal of precision; it involved misdirection and the highest of operational security. Our B2s went in and out of these nuclear sites in and out and back without the world knowing at all. In that way it was historic. A strike that included the longest B2 Spirit Bomber mission since 2001 and the first operational employment of the MOP, a massive ordinance penetrator. The mission demonstrated to the world the level of joint and Allied integration that speak to the strength of our alliance and our joint forces. As President Trump has stated, the United States does not seek war, but let me be clear: We will act swiftly and decisively when our people, our partners, or our interests are threatened. Iran should listen to the United States and know that he means it: every word. I want to give congratulations to our Commander-in Chief. It was an honor to watch him lead last night and throughout and to our great American warriors on this successful operation. God bless our troops. God bless America, and we give glory to God for his Providence and continue to ask for his protection. I turn it over now to the Chairman for specifics.

On Sunday, General Dan Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered his statement to the American public regarding the military details of Operation Midnight Hammer, in which the U.S. struck Iranian nuclear sites. Caine emphasized the precision and surprise of the attack and the incredibly tight security regarding the secrecy of the mission, pointing out that both on the way in and the way out, no shots were fired at the U.S. aircraft. “Any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks … would be an incredibly poor choice,” he stated bluntly. Full transcript below: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thanks for recognizing all of our folks out there doing our nation’s work, and nice to see everybody on this early Sunday morning. Last night, on the President’s orders, U.S. Central Command, under the command of General Eric Kurilla, executed Operation Midnight Hammer: a deliberate and precise strike against three Iranian nuclear facilities. This was a complex and high-risk mission carried out with exceptional skill and discipline by our joint force. I want to thank every service member, planner, operator, that made this mission possible. Their actions reflect the highest standards of the United States armed forces. This operation was designed to severely degrade Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure. It was planned and executed across multiple domains and theaters with coordination that reflects our ability to project power globally with speed and precision at the time and place of our nation’s choosing. This was a highly classified mission with very few people in Washington knowing the timing or nature of this plan. I’ll refer you to the graphic on the side as I walk you through some of the operational details. At midnight Friday into Saturday morning a large B2 strike package comprised of bombers launched from the continental United States. As part of a plan to maintain tactical surprise, part of the package proceeded to the west and into the Pacific as a decoy, a deception effort known only to an extremely small number of planners and key leaders here in Washington and in Tampa. The main strike package comprised of seven B2 Spirit bombers, each with two crewmembers, proceeded quietly to the East with minimal communications. Throughout the 18-hour flight into the target area. the aircraft completed multiple inflight refuelings. Once over land, the B2‘s linked up with escort and support aircraft in a complex tightly-timed maneuver requiring exact synchronization across multiple platforms in a narrow piece of airspace, all done with minimal communication communications. This type of integration is exactly what our joint force does better than anyone else in the world. At approximately 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time last night and just prior to the strike package entering Iran, a U.S. submarine in the central command area of responsibility launched more than two dozen Tomahawk plane attack cruise missiles against key surface infrastructure targets at Esfahan. As the Operation Midnight Hammer strike package entered Iranian airspace, the U.S. employed several deception tactics, including decoys, as the fourth and fifth generation aircraft pushed out in front of the strike package at high altitude and high speed, sweeping in front of the package for enemy fighters and surface-to-air missile threats. The strike package was supported by U.S. Strategic Command, U.S. Transportation Command, U.S. Cyber Command, U.S. Space Command, U.S. Space Force, and U.S. European Command. As the strike package approached Fordow and Natanz, the U.S. protection package employed high-speed suppression weapons to ensure safe passage of the strike package, with fighter assets employing preemptive, suppressing fires against any potential Iranian surface-to-air threats. We are currently unaware of any shots fired at the U.S. strike package on the way in. At approximately 6:40 p.m. Eastern Standard time, 2:10 a.m. Iran time. The lead B2 dropped two GU 57 massive ordinance penetrator weapons on the first of several aim points at Fordow. As the president stated last night, the remaining bombers then hit their targets as well. with a total of 14 MOPs dropped against two nuclear target areas. All three Iranian nuclear infrastructure targets were struck between 6:40 p.m. and 7:05 p.m. Eastern time. Again that’s about 2:10 in the morning local time in Iran, with the Tomahawk missiles being the last to strike a Esfahan to ensure we retained the element of surprise throughout the operation. Following weapons released the Midnight Hammer strike package exited Iranian airspace, and the package began its return home. We are unaware of any shots fired at the package on the way out. Iran’s fighters did not fly, and it appears that Iran’s surface-to-air missile systems did not see us throughout the mission. We retained the element of surprise. In total, U.S. forces employed approximately 75 precision-guided weapons during this operation. This included, as the president stated last night, 14 30,000 pound GBU- 57 massive ordinance penetrators, marking the first-ever operational use of this weapon. I know that battle damage is great interest; final battle damage will take some time but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction. More than 125 U.S. aircraft participated in this mission, including B2 stealth bombers, multiple flights of fourth and fifth generation fighters, dozens and dozens of air refueling tankers, a guided missile submarine, and a full array of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as hundreds of maintenance and operational professionals. As the Secretary said, this was the largest B2 operational strike in U.S. history and the second longest B2 mission ever flown, exceeded only by those in the days following 9/11. Well prior to the strike, General Kurilla elevated force protection measures across the region, especially in Iraq, Syria and the Gulf. Our forces remain on high alert and are fully postured to respond to any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks, which would be an incredibly poor choice. We will defend ourselves. The safety of our service members and civilians remains our highest priority. This mission demonstrates the unmatched reach, coordination, and capability of the United States military; in just a matter of weeks, this went from strategic planning to global execution. This operation underscores the unmatched capabilities and global reach of the United States military. As the President clearly said last night, no other military in the world could have done this. I join the President and the Secretary in being incredibly proud of the air crews, naval forces, cyber operators, planners and support teams and commanders who made this mission possible; it is their skill, discipline, and teamwork that makes this operation possible. I am particularly proud of our discipline related to operational security, something that was a great concern to the President, the Secretary, General Kurilla and me. And we will continue to focus on this. As we stand here this morning, many assets are still airborne and we have hundreds deployed. I ask that we keep our war fighters on their way home and our deployed service members in our thoughts. Our joint force remains ready to defend United States our troops and our interest in the region. Thank you very much.

Vice President JD Vance said on Sunday the United States is not at war with Iran after President Donald Trump ordered strikes on three of that country’s nuclear facilities. Vance made the declaration in response to what anchor Jonathan Karl called the “big question” at the top of an interview on ABC’s “This Week.” “No, we’re not at war with Iran, Jon,” Vance said. “We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program. And I think the president took decisive action to destroy that program last night.” Vance stressed that Trump, who has long stated that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, wants to force new leadership in Tehran. “We don’t want to achieve regime change — we want to achieve the end of the Iranian nuclear program,” Vance said, adding that the strikes were a “major step forward” toward achieving that result. Vance warned Iran against retaliating against the United States. “If the Iranians attack us, they’re going to be met with overwhelming force … We did not attack the nation of Iran. We did not attack any civilian targets. We didn’t even attack military targets outside of the three nuclear weapons facilities,” Vance said. If Iran were to attack the United States, Vance said that he believes the United States will be able to protect as many of its people as possible. “We have got maximum defensive posture,” Vance said. Vance contended that one cannot expect peace in the region if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon. “It would lead to absolutely disastrous military conflict all over the Middle East,” Vance said. “We don’t want that, our Gulf Arab allies don’t want that, Israel doesn’t want that.” Vance insisted that stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is one of the few issues that unites the Arabians and the Israelis. “They know it would lead to the opposite of peace,” he said. Vance also sought to offer comfort to those worried about the United States getting involved in another longstanding war. “The president — more than anybody — is worried about protracted military conflicts. That is not what we’re getting ourselves involved in,” Vance said. “What we’re getting ourselves involved in is a very targeted effort to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program,” Vance said. “That will continue to be the goal of American foreign policy. And it’s that goal that is going to motivate our action in the weeks and months to come.”

'Midnight Hammer'

'The operation was really extraordinary'

Wonder what’s wrong with straight marriage in the United States today? Just watch the wildly popular new Netflix series “The Four Seasons.”  The show, which chronicles four vacations taken by a longtime group of friends (two straight couples, one gay couple) over a year, takes a searing look at what romance remains—or doesn’t—after many years of marriage.  And in doing so, “The Four Seasons,” which has already been renewed for a second season, shows just how much is lacking in our current cultural understanding of marriage.  In the first episode—and here begins the rampant spoilers for “The Four Seasons,” so be warned—the friends are celebrating the 25th anniversary of Nick and Anne’s wedding.  There’s just one twist: Nick is planning to leave Anne, ASAP.  “I’m not happy. I haven’t been for a long time,” Nick tells his friends.  “It’s time for me to take hold of my life,” adds Nick, played by Steve Carell of “The Office” fame, before going on to complain about his wife, played by Kerri Kenney Silver.  “She’s a kind woman. She just—she’s given up. She doesn’t do anything,” he laments. “She won’t read any new books. She won’t go out on the boat. I built her that pottery shed—she hasn’t made one thing.”  “All she wants to do is play this farm thing on her iPad,” he adds, presumably referring to either Farmville or a similar game. “I look over her shoulder some nights. She’s really high on the leaderboard.”  “The Four Seasons” isn’t the only cultural phenomena to explore whether long marriages and fulfillment can coexist. Miranda July, author of the 2024 raunchy bestselling novel “All Fours,” wrote a popular Substack post, where she decreed, “I do believe (and I tell this to my child) that romantic relationships are usually not supposed to be lifelong, but rather a season of a particular length, to be determined.”  Further on in the post, July even uses the language of being “very alive.”  “Novelty helps women stay very alive which is part of our very important purpose here on Earth. Doesn’t mean you have to slut it up constantly, but the idea of one person forever was … probably not something women came up with,” added July, whose novel is being adapted into a series by Starz.  Are older Americans thinking this way?  A 2023 Bowling Green State University study found that divorce rates for women 55 and older had roughly tripled since 1990. Even so, the divorce rate among those 55 and older, while trending upward, remains significantly lower than the divorce rate for younger Americans. ?  But it’s not clear that Nick and Anne do represent the “typical” gray divorce couple. Neither appears to have been previously married. Citing a 2012 Bowling Green State University study, Kay Hymowitz writes for the Institute for Family Studies, “More than half of older divorced people were already on their second or third (or more) marriage.”  Nick with his young girlfriend Ginny, played by Erika Henningsen. (Photo courtesy Netflix) Ultimately, Nick—who never acknowledges to his friends that he’s previously cheated on Anne, a fact they learn from her later—does go on to leave his wife. Within months, he’s already dating a much younger woman, his dental hygienist, and bringing her on vacation with his friends.  “I don’t care if you guys don’t believe me. I’m happier than I’ve ever been,” he tells his friends.  When the character Kate, played by Tina Fey (“30 Rock,” “Saturday Night Live,”) skeptically notes she overheard him crying the other night, he is defiant.  “You know why I was crying, Kate? Because I couldn’t believe what a lucky son of a b—- I am. I was looking up into the heavens, thanking God for allowing me to meet Ginny, for giving me a second chance. I was dead and now I live.”  “When was the last time you guys felt like that?” he adds, leading to an uncomfortable look between the long-married Kate and her husband Jack (Will Forte, also of “Saturday Night Live”).  But is that what marriage is about?  “The Four Seasons” does not shy away from examining the ugly side effects of Nick’s choice, most memorably in a scathing play written by his college-age daughter that includes a character based on her dad defending his choice to leave the family by saying, “The penis wants what it wants.” His daughter’s take is validated when, after Nick dies in a car accident, his girlfriend wants to highlight their time together by showing funeral attendees a series of sexy photos of the couple.  This clip contains adult language. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Netflix US (@netflix) But—as cliché as Nick’s solution is—is he wrong to want to live, not just exist?  Furthermore, the love between the straight couple who does stay together—Kate and Jack—seems well, uninspiring. They quibble. They kvetch. Sure, they stay loyal, and it’s clear real love exists—but it’s hard to imagine any teen or young adult watching this, and thinking, that’s what I want from a marriage. ?  Yet should anyone expect anything more from marriage? As the Los Angeles Times put it in a headline, “For better or worse: In ‘The Four Seasons,’ Tina Fey and Will Forte depict a relatable marriage.” Vulture TV critic Jen Chaney describes the show’s screenwriters as being on a “quest to showcase all the enraging absurdity of middle-aged monogamy.”  Ultimately, Jack and Kate and Nick and Anne’s marriages do seem pretty typical for marriages in our culture.  And that’s a problem.  In many ways, our culture is obsessed with love and marriage. Romance novels fly off the shelves, dating (or even marriage) reality TV series remain perpetually popular, and our social media is littered with dreamy, gauzy shots of wedding days. We all—or least a large percentage of us—are very much about “the happily ever after.”  But what if marriage can’t provide that?  What if there’s no one person who can make another totally happy for a lifetime?  What if we’re just putting way too much pressure on our marriages?  My brother, a Catholic deacon, suggested to my now-husband and me prior to our wedding earlier this year that we read a book by the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, whose “Life Is Worth Living” TV show ran in the 1950s. The book, “Three to Get Married,” is not a call for polygamy, but a reminder of how every marriage should include God.  In some ways, the book was, frankly, a downer. As I stressed about everything from venues to dates that would allow loved ones to attend to whether a cash registry was tacky, it did not exactly uplift me to read passages like this:  “The difference between love of humans and love of God is that in human love ecstasy comes at the beginning, but in the love of God, it comes only at the end, after one has passed through much suffering and agony of soul. … The ecstatic pleasures of marriage are in the nature of a ‘bait,’ luring lovers to fulfill their mission, and they are also a Divine credit extended to those who later on will have the burden of rearing a family.”  “The first ecstasy is not the true ecstasy,” added Sheen, who served as an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of New York from 1951-1966. “The latter comes only after purging trial, fidelities through the storm, perseverance through mediocrities, and pursuit of Divine destiny through the allurements of earth. The deep ecstatic love that some Christian fathers and mothers have after passing through their Calvaries is beautiful to be hold. True ecstasy is really not of youth but of age.”  “Too many married people,” Sheen warns, “expect their partner to give that which only God can give, namely, an eternal ecstasy.”  Kate, played by Tina Fey, with her husband Jack, played by Will Forte, and some of their friends. (Photo courtesy Netflix) That’s a warning I’d love to see delivered to “The Four Seasons” couples. Nick wasn’t wrong to want more out of life—but he arguably needed God, not a young girlfriend, if he was looking for a more permanent ecstasy.  “The Four Seasons,” like much of American romance, seems religionless. (The only time I recall religion being mentioned in the series was Nick’s thanking God for Ginny.) Sure, many of American weddings involve some religious elements, but how often is there a sense that the couple also has a relationship with God?  True, I’ve only been married a few months—a far cry from Nick and Anne’s 25 years. I’m sure there will be challenges and hardships in our future years of married life that I’m naive to now.  Yet, for my own marriage, it’s been extremely comforting to have prayer be a critical part of our relationship, whether it’s prayer before meals, or praying together in the church before our wedding mass began, or even just spontaneous prayer. It is a reminder that we are not alone in this, that ultimately as we both at times disappoint each other just by virtue of being human, that we can draw on another life-giving source.  There are many reasons the marriage rate is down in the United States. But “The Four Seasons” suggests that maybe our view of marriage is one reason our marriage culture is struggling. Our spouses can’t be our gods. Our marriages can’t be our sole source of fulfillment and joy.  There’s more to life than Farmville—much more. Nick, and real-life Americans, aren’t wrong to want that.  But there’s also much more to life than hot sex. There are other ways to feel alive than sexual passion.  We need to find a way to both preserve and champion marriages and stop putting them on an unrealistic pedestal. A good spouse is a wonderful joy—but no person can be another person’s full fulfillment, their absolute soulmate. “Four Seasons” highlights how our unrealistic view of marriage can ultimately kill, not nourish, marriages.  The post ‘Four Seasons’ Shows What’s Wrong With Straight Marriage  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It’s Donald Trump’s first summer back in the White House since 2020 and — just like five years ago — leftists protesters are raging in America’s cities and the liberal media are blaming... Trump. Earlier this month, ABC’s Mary Bruce scorned the President’s decision to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles as “a remarkable and unprecedented escalation” and evidence of his “eagerness to used armed forces to try and shut down protests.” In another echo of 2020, there has been little bad press for the actual rioters; CNN and MSNBC described them as “peaceful,” “mostly peaceful” or “largely peaceful” a whopping 211 times just on June 6 and 7 — even as the mob burned cars, looted stores and hurled rocks and other dangerous objects at law enforcement. It’s as if lazy reporters merely dusted off their scripts from five years ago. Back then, the ostensible reason for the protests was the murder in late May of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, but the demonstrations quickly became a violent vehicle for broader left-wing rage against Trump administration policies and the President himself. So instead of criticizing the lawlessness in the streets, journalists elevated their cause. On May 30, 2020, for example, CNN’s Don Lemon likened looting vandals to “the Boston Tea Party,” as he complained about the President’s rhetoric: “Do not get it twisted and think this is something that has never happened before, and this is so terrible and these savages, and all of that. This is how this country was started.” “Heavy-handedness seems to be kind of the order of the day. I didn’t see any law enforcement really working to protect the protesters in exercising their constitutional First Amendment right to protest. That is also part of the responsibility of law enforcement, to uphold the Constitution,” MSNBC’s Joshua Johnson whined on NBC’s Meet the Press on May 31. “The idea that you could have a few people, who break a few windows and burn a few cars, and then militarize the whole nation’s law enforcement infrastructure, it just shows how very tenuous things are right now.” “The President has incited and divided, has stoked this. His comments have been as outrageous as they are unacceptable,” MSNBC analyst Steve Schmidt fumed that night in a special “A Country on the Brink” program. “The President seems to think that dominating black people, dominating peaceful protesters is law and order. It’s not. He calls them thugs. Who is the thug here?” CNN’s Anderson Cooper railed on June 1. “I’ve seen countries ripped apart by hate and misinformation and lies and political demagogues and racism. We can’t let that happen here.” “We already know where the President’s heart is and his heart is in continued racial division rather than unity,” correspondent John Harwood alleged on CNN’s Newsroom ten days later. “The President’s impulse, as it’s been throughout his political career is to play to racial division as a source of political strength.” Yet journalists insisted on painting protests as benign and peaceful. On June 12, CBS’s Anna Werner cheerfully reported from Seattle about a section of the city from which radical demonstrators had forced law enforcement to retreat: “The autonomous zone has turned into an almost street fair-like atmosphere with free food, art displays, and outdoor movie nights.” Three days later, correspondent Vaughn Hillyard painted a similarly delightful picture of the occupied zone in Seattle, telling MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle: “You had a very peaceful week here on these streets....I think it’s important to note, Stephanie, this is not some hostile takeover.” Ruhle beamed: “That message of peace and community. Vaughn, thank you so much. It’s so important to have you there showing us the real story.” Yet with the police forced out, the area was plagued by “rapes, robberies, and all sorts of violent acts,” according to Seattle’s police chief. Shootings left one dead and others injured; too late, the city’s Democratic mayor finally ordered police to move in and re-establish law and order.  But the national media continued to sanctify the protests and villainize Trump. “Thank goodness these protesters are starting to stand up and challenge Trumpism, which has an aura around it of white supremacy,” historian Douglas Brinkley charged June 13 on CNN. “I think that many of us have echoed for a long period of time that Donald Trump was going to be on the wrong side of history. And he appears to do so. I mean, you can choose the side of Bull Connor, Lester Maddox and George Wallace if you want to,” CNN analyst Bakari Sellers echoed on June 23, lumping the President in with notorious Democratic racists of the civil rights era. “Although amplifying racism and stoking culture wars have been mainstays of Trump’s public identity for decades, they have been particularly pronounced this summer,” the Washington Post’s Robert Costa and Philip Rucker echoed in a July 4 front-page story. On July 10, disgraced ex-NBC anchor Brian Williams piled on. “What demographic is the President chasing here? Are we suddenly producing, by percentage, more people who feel the wrong team won in the Civil War?” Williams asked on his MSNBC show, The 11th Hour. “The Republican Party is sort of morphing into the National Party in South Africa in the 1980s,” proclaimed MSNBC’s Joy Reid the next morning on AM Joy. “It’s, ‘We’ll defend white America’s privileges, but you have to be really afraid that the black people are coming for you, so you have to stick with us and stay with the team.’ It’s a strategy.” On July 16, MSNBC’s Tiffany Cross, popped up on The View to scold Trump’s rhetoric: “He’s tossing red meat to his Klan-like base that he needs so desperately to win in November.”                                  Four days later, MSNBC’s Steve Schmidt was back on TV to unleash another anti-Trump tirade: “The President of the United States is a constitutional vandal and a political arsonist....He has loosed violence in America’s cities at an epic level. What we’re seeing is illiberal, it is illegal, and it is dangerous…. It’s federal thuggery — and it’s frightening.” MSNBC’s Reid opted to bash the troops: “A generation ago, when federal forces were deployed into American cities, it was a relief to people of color because it meant that a little girl may get walked into school....Now, when federal forces are being deployed into America’s cities, it’s to tear gas and abuse people and in some cases just snatch people off the streets without identifying themselves and essentially to kidnap them. It’s a secret police sort of, you know, vibe instead of a cavalry.” After federal agents finally detained violent Antifa protesters causing mayhem in Portland Oregan, the co-hosts of ABC’s The View painted the image of America as a police state. “I’m witnessing fascism in America now,” Joy Behar whined. “This is the beginning of the end of democracy.” “This is not America, this is not American,” Sunny Hostin agreed. “We have really the actions of a dictator.” Behar used the moment to electioneer against Trump: “You know what this reminds me of? Back in the day when the militia — or whatever they were — killed that kid….those children at Kent State, when our government is actually killing American citizens, children, they were college kids, it’s the same. We were horrified then, we’re horrified now. [Richard] Nixon had to go, and this President has to go, otherwise we have no country.” For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.

On a recent episode of “Kibbe on Liberty,” Matt Kibbe sat down with nationally recognized political changemaker Steven Olikara, senior fellow for political transformation at the USC Schwarzenegger Institute and the founder of Millennial Action Project (now Future Caucus), the largest nonpartisan organization of young elected leaders in the U.S.In their conversation, the two expressed their hopes that populism — a political approach that aims to represent the interests of commoners against a perceived elite or establishment — will eventually conquer the two-party system that crushes the voice of the people. The current political culture in America, says Olikara, has both Republicans and Democrats saying, “We know what's best for you,” but what they should be saying is, “We want to hear from you.”Kibbe, a self-described “libertarian populist,” agrees, arguing that populism is "the right side of history because the other side is the machine” — “a collusion of government power and corporate power.”The question is, can populism garner enough support to break the political establishment?The answer, says Olikara, is yes. Support for populism is high. The issue is the entrenched elites who rig the system to snuff out any non-establishment opponent.In his experience campaigning in the 2022 U.S. Senate primary in Wisconsin as a Democrat with a strong bent towards populism, his team would “get the most applause out of all the candidates” at campaign events, and yet they could rarely secure a debate to get their “ideas out to a statewide audience” because “all the other campaigns in the party were making an extra effort to make sure there were no debates.”On the rare occasion he did secure a debate, he was often declared the winner. However, “just as those sparks were flying, the Democratic establishment effectively ended the race 10 days before the election,” says Olikara. “They said, ‘We don't want to wait to hear what the people have to say. We're going to violate our bylaws and endorse the establishment candidate."’Despite Olikara’s popularity, Mandela Barnes, a well-known Democrat with strong party support, was endorsed by key figures, making his win in the primary nearly certain.“I got phone calls from a number of senior Democratic leaders calling to apologize to me why they're not only breaking their bylaws but breaking their promise that they had made to me to be neutral in the primary,” says Olikara, noting that these leaders will admit they’re more concerned about money and control than the people’s voices being heard.“If you just let ideas breathe a little bit, if you let people express their voices, that's the kind of democracy I believe in,” he says.Kibbe shares Olikara’s sentiments, comparing the current two-party system to having “Taylor Swift” or “the most obnoxious country musician” as your only options for music. “I like the democracy that is Spotify, where I can listen to my weird, very fringy ... versions of music that I like,” he analogizes.Unfortunately, for now it’s Swift or honky-tonk. “They make it so that you have to choose their candidate or that really bad guy on the other side,” Kibbe laments. “We go through this cycle every two to four years, and it's pretty disheartening for anybody that imagines that we could give people in democratic America choices that they would actually be proud of.”However, President Trump’s 2016 rise to power as a system-breaker is proof that populist movements can challenge the two-party establishment. “He's the first guy to sort of take over a party, at least since maybe since Abe Lincoln,” says Kibbe. “Now he is the party, so it was impossible to run against him in his last primary.” But even though Trump proved the system could be broken, “the Democrats seem still hell-bent on preventing a real primary.”Olikara is hopeful that in 2028, Democrats will allow “the first truly open democratic primary since 2007 and 2008,” when Barack Obama — “not the establishment candidate” — “emerged and defeated the Clinton machine,” a victory he says is “on par with Trump winning the 2016 Republican primary against the establishment.”“The moment is perfect for it — like there's clearly no field-clearing candidate. It's wide-open. Democrats are in the wilderness now, which usually means a new voice, a new movement, can emerge,” he says. “It's all set up for them, and yet there's a good chance they still shoot themselves in the foot.”To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.Want more from Matt Kibbe?To enjoy more of Matt's liberty-defending stance as he gets in the face of the fake news establishment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A new 20-minute gameplay demo for upcoming open-world RPG The Blood of Dawnwalker suggests that developer Rebel Wolves has the magic touch to incorporate the best thing about The Witcher 3. The mere idea of a new game from former CD Projekt Red devs that worked on The Witcher series and Cyberpunk 2077 is enough to perk up my ears, but while that legacy is valuable, the proof doesn’t come until the final product arrives. Fortunately, this extended demonstration of The Blood of Dawnwalker’s dynamic and reactive quest system is exactly what I was hoping to see. Continue reading New open-world RPG from ex CDPR devs inherits The Witcher 3's best bit MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best fantasy games, Best RPGs, Best vampire games

Sorry Trump Bombed Your BESTIES! X RELENTLESSLY Drags Ben Rhodes for His 1st Post-Iran-Bombings Post