Deport them. The post Columbia U Students for Justice in Palestine Tweet ‘Death to America’ appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

The War Department defeats wokeness. The post After Sec. Hegseth’s Pressure, Boy Scouts Drop DEI, Transgenderism appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

There's a reason they're hiding the numbers. The post FACT CHECK: No, Huge Numbers of Americans Aren’t Leaving appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

President Trump is the most courageous commander-in-chief in modern American history. There is no question about it. What he just did is the bravest move by a president of the United States of my lifetime, bar none. The president of the United States made the unbelievably brave decision — and it was a brave decision — to move to end the chief threat against America and her allies in the Middle East — the core threat, the Iranian regime, that has been percolating, militating, killing Americans and American allies since 1979. That is the first thing to recognize about what President Trump did. President Trump is doing so because he understands what it means for America to get rid of long-standing enemies. He understands that the use of force is a necessary component when it comes to America’s geopolitical position in the world. He is doing so because he understands better than any American president of my lifetime that America does not need to get bogged down in a long, prolonged war with hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground. America needs to flex her power when necessary and do the thing that is right when necessary in order to protect her core interests. One of the things you’re hearing tonight from critics of the president is that there is no direct attack on the United States, therefore, no sort of military action ought to have been undertaken with regard to Iran.  First of all, historically speaking, that’s not true. The Iranian government has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of Americans over the course of time, ranging from the 1983 barracks bombing in Lebanon via its proxy Hezbollah, to the death of hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq during the Iraq War. The Iranian regime has also been responsible for the murder of people abroad, ranging from Europe to South America to, obviously, the Middle East, where it has activated its proxies against American allies, not just Israel, but also including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other countries in the region. The Iranian government is the leading sponsor of terrorism on planet Earth. It has been for decades. The president decided to end that threat. The idea that America has never suffered a direct attack or has not recently suffered a direct attack from Iran is not true. But people say, “It wasn’t a direct attack right now. Iran didn’t attack a tower in New York.” That’s true. But that is not the only reason why you take out a regime, why you go after the leadership. What the United States is doing right now is recognizing that there was a unique opportunity presented by the situation on the ground in Iran for a change of direction in Iran, which will totally upend the politics of the Middle East, and of the world, in a tremendous way. Let’s start with geopolitics. What’s the geopolitical reason for the United States to be involved? Because geopolitics do affect Americans. America takes action abroad in order to affect its geopolitical position. This, for example, is why, if China were to threaten Taiwan, that would affect Americans because we get semiconductors from Taiwan. Also, if China continues to expand its footprint, then that means America’s economic and military interests are threatened. The current regime in Iran acts as a linkage between China and Russia. It provides enormous amounts of oil to the Chinese machine, and it gives the Russian war machine its drones. And, of course, it acts as a check and balance against the United States in the Middle East. That is what Iran has historically done. In order to understand what President Trump is doing geopolitically, you have to understand the consequences if he didn’t do it. If President Trump had left the Iranian regime in place after it murdered 32,000 of its own citizens in violation of his own red line; if the Iranian regime continued to rebuild all of its military and nuclear facilities, which is what it was doing — if it continued to do that and President Trump did nothing — the geopolitical consequences for the United States would have been disastrous. Why? Because when China looks at that, perhaps they make their move on Taiwan. When Russia looks at that, then they really up the ante in Ukraine. President Trump is the president who will not allow, under any circumstances, the threat of force to go away. He understands better than anyone that the credible threat of American military force is the thing that keeps America in the driver’s seat globally. That is what he was doing. He is pushing China off the ball with regard to Taiwan. He is pushing Russia off the ball with regard to Ukraine. And yes, of course, he is getting rid of the cancerous regime in Tehran, which has spread its terror tentacles all over the world, predominantly in the Middle East, but also in South America and in Europe, where it has pursued terrorist attacks. WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show | Special Edition | “Trump Strikes Iran” on DailyWire+ Changing out the top of the regime in Iran will have massive repercussions. There are a lot of people who think that in order for the United States to justify any military action, a threat must either be immediately imminent — meaning like they’re going to blow up a building in New York right now — or that there must have been a direct attack. Historically, blown opportunities lead to significantly worse after-effects. Bill Clinton failing to kill Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s when we had him in the crosshairs led to the attack on the USS Cole and the attacks on 9/11. The unwillingness of the West to topple the Bolshevik regime in its earliest iterations in Russia — failing to sufficiently support the Whites against the Reds in Russia — led to a full century of Soviet sponsorship of mass murder. The unwillingness of the United States to help Chiang Kai-Shek fight back against the Communists in China led to the rise of the Chinese Communist Party — responsible for not only the deaths of tens of millions of its own citizens, but is now the main geopolitical threat facing America today. In other words, when you have an opportunity to effectuate serious change at relatively low cost, you do it. The United States has complete air superiority. Why? Because after the 12-Day-War last year, in which Israel essentially defenestrated the air defense systems in Iran, the United States essentially had clear airways to go and take out huge numbers of Iranian regime targets. The opportunity was there. Not only that, but the opportunity became even greater because the Iranian people were tired of living under this regime. The Iranian rial (IRR) right now is so dirt cheap, it would take 1 million Iranian rials to amount to 0.75 cents in the United States. And so, the Iranian people were tired of it, which is why they rose up in December of last year and started mass protesting in the streets. So the opportunity is for the people to take charge of their future with the help of the United States from above. And that’s what President Trump is saying: We’re not going to put hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground and just effectuate a regime change. We are going to take out the people who are most threatening.  Now, go take control of your own country.

BREAKING: Iranian Regime Media Admits Khamenei Is Dead

After being deprived of its federal funding by Republicans, it's only natural that NPR is going to sound especially bitter about President Trump engaging in what they claim is "media censorship." The ruse here is that Stephen Colbert was somehow unable to put leftist Democrat James Talarico on his Late Show because of Trump. But the Trump administration didn't stop it. CBS's lawyers warned him it could be an "equal time" violation.  We know what happened next -- massive YouTube views for Colbert and Talarico, leading to millions of dollars in donations to Talarico's Senate campaign against Rep. Jasmine Crockett -- who could ask for "equal time." On Wednesday's edition of The NPR Politics Podcast, they turned to NPR media reporter David Folkenflik to warn about FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and his expressed aim to investigate "equal time" on remarkably one-sided shows like Colbert's. The headline for this episode:  Is the FCC 'equal time' rule leading to media censorship — and self-censorship? Get a load of how vaguely Folkenflik defines the issue with Carr and his statement about Jimmy Kimmel:  FOLKENFLIK: Last fall, he essentially, you know, did an impression of a mafioso, as Senator Ted Cruz put it, by saying we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way after Jimmy Kimmel made some remarks that offended the president's supporters in the wake of the killing of Charlie Kirk. And Disney took him off the air for some days after two major owners of local TV stations that have ABC affiliates, you know, said that they were going to pull that show from their airwaves. Some people said something. Jimmy Kimmel's "remarks" were lying about Charlie Kirk's killer being a "MAGA" bro, the opposite of the truth, hence they "offended" Trump fans. Folkenflik channeled the Left, that "some of the critics are saying that they're actually self-censoring" because of Trump and Carr. Naturally, like other liberals, NPR had to talk about conservative talk-radio shows would fail the "equal time" rules: MILES PARKS: But, I mean, it feels worth noting that talk radio, which is also governed by the FCC, routinely, I mean, you hear talk radio show hosts interview candidates without the same level of scrutiny. So what am I missing here? FOLKENFLIK: Well, I think at the moment, it's fair to say what we're all missing is consistency in Chairman Carr's application of where he's interested in going, what he wants to regulate, where he'd like to have a heavy hand, the easy way or the hard way, right? He's shown no interest publicly in wading into refereeing whether or not nationally syndicated shows like Sean Hannity's or local talk radio show hosts, which significantly skew to the right, should equally be scrutinized or regulated or forced to give equal time, given the amount of interviews that they give to favored candidates. Folkenflik said the goal here is that "you would see a tampening down on certain kinds of conversations that are critical of the president, which, of course, in many ways is the desired outcome here." NPR political editor Domenico Montanaro interjected: "Yeah, and it's not really about fairness. It seems to be about Trump and what he wants and what conservatives are looking at here. There certainly is this inconsistency that David's talking about." There's an enormous hole in NPR's logic here. Because NPR is a news/talk network from coast to coast, and do they meet "equal time" rules? Our study of their badly-named All Things Considered evening newscast found liberals were interviewed more often conservatives by 53 to 3.  Our study found NPR's Fresh Air interviewed only liberal journalists, and no conservatives. They're "not really about fairness." Conservative radio hosts would be glad to put some Democrats on their shows for equal time, but how likely is it that the Democrats would accept?! Wishful thinking followed. Parks talked up if they were any way that Trump's and Carr's moves could backfire with the public. MONTANARO: Look, if there's a word that's landed Trump in political hot water in this first year and made him unpopular with independents and persuadable voters, it's overreach. There's a risk here in looking like the very thing that his critics are accusing him of being - you know, the idea of autocracy and backsliding and cracking down on what journalists and artists are able to do. And I think that we're seeing this sort of tension that has risen up. And that's where the backfiring can kind of come in for Trump and Republicans if they're viewed as pushing too hard to suppress speech. When 99 percent of Colbert's political guests are liberals, who looks like an autocracy?

Avoid a money pit. Consumer Reports' 2026 rankings reveal five car brands with major reliability issues. See which popular trucks and SUVs to skip today.

Masih Alinejad, an Iranian American journalist who has advocated the overthrow of the Islamic regime since she fled to the U.S. in 2009, shed tears of joy Saturday upon learning that Iran's leader, Ali Khamenei, was killed.

What is going on in Loudon County, Virginia? How many scandals can one school district rack up? As we reported last May, three boys were being investigated by Loudoun County Public Schools for "sexual…