Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro definitely got everyone’s attention on Monday when he announced his retirement from the rap game after dominating the charts for more than a week. The host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” collaborated on the music video “Facts” with Canadian wrestler-turned-rapper Tom MacDonald in a song that takes a swipe at the insanity of things in our culture like gender identity and defunding the police. It ended up rocketing up the charts. quickly becoming the number one song in the country and topping the hip-hop/rap category on the iTunes charts. As of Sunday‚ “Facts” remained the top song in the U.S. “BREAKING. ‘FACTS’ by [Tom MacDonald]] (ft. me) has now finally dropped from the top slot on iTunes‚ after 10 days of pure magic‚” Shapiro wrote on X. BREAKING “FACTS” by @IAMTOMMACDONALD (ft. me) has now finally dropped from the top slot on iTunes‚ after 10 days of pure magic. Rap Hannukah is over. And so‚ with tears in my eyes‚ I have another announcement to make. To all the little homies‚ who have been lifting me up… pic.twitter.com/7TpPLwtDo5 — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) February 5‚ 2024 “Rap Hannukah is over‚” he added. “And so‚ with tears in my eyes‚ I have another announcement to make. To all the little homies‚ who have been lifting me up since I began this journey.” “It was an inspiring moment‚” Shapiro continued. “A musical supernova. But now the time has come for me to walk away from my art. And so today‚ I announce that I am retiring from rap to spend more time with my family.  It’s been real‚ dawgs.  And never forget: the music never dies so long as the beat is in your heart.” Shapiro and MacDonald blew up the music industry after topping the charts with their rap collaboration.  The music video dropped on the morning of Jan. 26 and by mid-day‚ “Facts” was generating headlines‚ not only for topping the hip-hop/rap chart‚ beating out the likes of Nicki Minaj and Megan Thee Stallion‚ but because it soon became the number one song in the country on the iTunes chart. At the time of this piece‚ the music video has been viewed more than 13 million times on YouTube and is still #3 top trending song on the site. On Feb. 1‚ Shapiro shared a screenshot that showed his rap collab was in the top spot on iTunes music and wrote‚ “Day 7 of Rap Hannukah. The flame is still lit. Buy now at …Billboard #1‚ we are coming for you.” In a press release from MacDonald after their rap dropped Shapiro said‚ “As a longtime devotee of rap‚ becoming a rapper was the natural next step in my career trajectory. So‚ when Tom asked if I wanted to collaborate on a song‚ I leapt at the chance.” “This was the moment I spent 20 years of classical violin training preparing for‚” he added. “For those who don’t appreciate my artistic stylings‚ all I can say is that they didn’t appreciate Bach properly in his own time‚ either.”

President Joe Biden is once again going viral for a gaffe in which he claimed to have met with a long-dead leader of France shortly after taking office in the White House as commander in chief. While delivering remarks in Las Vegas on Sunday‚ ahead of the Nevada primary this week‚ Biden hearkened back to a G-7 meeting in the United Kingdom and a gathering of NATO leaders that took place in June of 2021 in which a conversation about the U.S. Capitol breach on January 6 apparently came up. “I sat down and I said‚ ‘America’s back’ and Mitterrand from Germany — I mean from France looked at me and said‚ ‘You know why — how long you back for?'” Biden recalled‚ invoking François Mitterrand‚ the former president of France‚ according to a widely shared post to X by National Pulse editor-in-chief Raheem Kassam along with a clip of the remarks. WATCH: Joe Biden says he recently met with “Mitterand from Germany.” Mitterand was the FRENCH President between 1981 and 1995. He also died in 1996. pic.twitter.com/W0YPBDp69n — Raheem. (@RaheemKassam) February 5‚ 2024 A glaring issue with that recollection is that Mitterrand‚ who served as president of France from 1981 to 1995‚ has been dead since 1996 —roughly 25 years earlier. At the time of the G-7 meeting in 2021‚ Emmanuel Macron was president of France. And it’s not the first time Biden has suggested that he interacted with Mitterrand at the same meeting. Biden told a similar version of the story‚ including the same Mitterrand blunder‚ in 2022. In both cases‚ the White House transcripts of Biden’s remarks showed Mitterrand’s name crossed out and replaced with Macron. Biden is well known for making gaffes over the years‚ but those concerns have risen of late as he seeks a second term in the White House‚ fueled by the president’s age‚ his tendency to lose his train of thought while speaking‚ and moments caught on camera where he has tripped or fallen over. Biden has earned himself negative press with faulty stories he’s told‚ including repeating an exaggerated house fire experience. A national poll from NBC News that was published in June of last year found growing anxiety concerning Biden‘s fitness to serve‚ as more than two-thirds of registered voters — 68% — said they have moderate to major concerns about him “not having the necessary mental and physical health” to be president. Nikki Haley‚ who is 52 and running for the GOP presidential nomination‚ began her campaign last February by pushing for mandatory mental competency tests for politicians over 75 years old. In an appeal to voters who are dreading a potential 2020 rematch between former President Donald Trump‚ who is now 77‚ and Biden‚ who is now 81‚ Haley has taken to calling them “grumpy old men.”

Emily Willis‚ a porn star with millions of followers on social media‚ is reportedly in critical condition after being rushed to the hospital from an apparent overdose. TMZ reported that‚ according to law enforcement sources‚ Willis was transported to a hospital in Thousand Oaks‚ California‚ on Sunday after first responders received a call about a suspected overdose. “We’re told the report came in for an unresponsive 25-year-old … whom we’ve confirmed is Emily‚” TMZ reported. “Emily was actually transported from a well-known celeb rehab location in Malibu … where she appears to have been receiving treatment for addiction.” The report said that she was in the critical care unit at the hospital. Willis has over 4 million followers across her various social media channels. This is a developing news story; refresh the page for updates. 

Major scientific studies on the potential harm of abortion pills were retracted on Monday by their publisher‚ just weeks before the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the availability of such drugs. Three studies‚ including two on the potential harms of the abortion pill just‚ were retracted on Monday by Sage Publishing‚ an independent academic publishing company. The retraction notice states that an independent review of the studies was conducted due to a single reader’s complaint that the studies included misleading data and that the authors were affiliated with a pro-life organization‚ the Charlotte Lozier Institute‚ presenting a conflict of interest.  The authors of the studies say the retractions are a politically-motivated effort to discredit research that was cited in U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s April 2023 decision to suspend approval of mifepristone‚ the drug used in roughly half of all abortions in the United States. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in March on the legality of restricting the abortion pill based on Kacsmaryk’s ruling‚ proceedings that will certainly be impacted by the retractions.  Dr. James Studnicki‚ a listed author on all three studies in question‚ told The Daily Wire that the retractions were “completely unjustified” and that the retractions were meant to discredit scientific research that challenged the pro-abortion bias engrained in academia.  Studnicki‚ who trained at Johns Hopkins University and has spent decades conducting scientific research‚ said that he and his fellow researchers were targeted “because of the visibility of our work‚ because of the fact that our work was having such an influence on the discussion about abortion that was occurring in the states and in the courts at the highest levels.” One of the now-retracted studies‚ published November 9‚ 2021‚ found that the rate of emergency room visits following chemical abortions had spiked 500% from 2002-2015‚ according to Medicaid claims data. Another one of the studies‚ published May 20‚ 2022‚ analyzed the likelihood of recurring emergency room visits for women who did not disclose to doctors that they had a chemical abortion. These two studies were cited in Kacsmaryk’s decision to suspend FDA approval of mifepristone. Additionally‚ the testimony of Dr. Ingrid Skop‚ who was an author on all three of the articles‚ was cited multiple times in an August decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals where the court said that chemical abortion drug mifepristone should not be distributed through the mail or prescribed via telemedicine.  Studnicki added that the retractions were emblematic of the politicization of science‚ pointing to stances on transgender and climate issues widely held by the academic establishment. He said that proponents of abortion were deeply threatened by the overturning of Roe v. Wade and were now pushing to banish any research suggesting dangers with abortion out of the academy.  “I think Dobbs really accelerated this‚ I think there’s a sense of desperation among those in the abortion industry‚” he told The Daily Wire ahead of the retraction‚ which was expected. “They’ve always had the literature to themselves. All of the major health associations are pro-abortion‚ most of the journals are pro-abortion‚ all the academic departments in the universities are pro-abortion.”  In previous correspondence with the authors‚ Sage pushed back against allegations of political bias‚ saying that issues identified in the articles were based on independent review by “subject experts” and methodological issues with the articles. Sage declined to comment on the retraction‚ but directed The Daily Wire to an explanation of its decision. No issues were raised with any of the studies until April 2023‚ the same month of Kacsmaryk’s decision‚ when pharmaceutical sciences professor and abortion supporter Chris Adkins complained to Sage about the article claiming that the study showing an increase in rate of emergency room visits was full of “dishonest science” and “grossly misleading.” The researchers were not informed of any issues with the articles until June 28‚ 2023‚ when they were informed of the complaint from the reader. They responded to the concerns on July 13‚ and an expression of concern was placed on the article dated July 25.  After months of back and forth with the journal‚ on November 13‚ Sage told the researchers that they would be retracting the three studies. The next day‚ Studnicki was kicked off the editorial board of the Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology journal‚ months before the retractions actually took place.  “In light of the decision to retract three research articles where you are an author‚ I believe that your term as an editorial board member must now come to an end. As the Editor‚ I appreciated your contributions to the journal‚” Dr. Gregory Garrison wrote to Studnicki in an email viewed by The Daily Wire.  This message came after Garrison had previously highlighted Studnicki’s research in question in an editorial for Sage in March 2022.   On November 16‚ the researchers sent a letter to Sage requesting more time to respond to the retraction notice‚ saying that the retractions were “procedurally improper” and suggesting that the real reason for the retractions was to undermine their research ahead of the Supreme Court’s consideration of mifepristone.  “Your decision also reflects a regrettable pattern of using scientific publications as a sword against unpopular findings—regardless of their objectivity. This further undermines the public’s confidence in scientific bodies and does a disservice to your mission to ‘advance knowledge‚’” the letter from the authors said.  Days after missing the initial retraction deadline‚ Sage responded on November 21 to the researchers giving them until November 29 to respond and denying any suggestion that the retractions were politically motivated. “Sage rejects as spurious your insinuation that the timing of the Retraction Notice was in anyway related to a Supreme Court case‚” Sage wrote in a letter viewed by The Daily Wire. “The retraction of the three articles is solely based on the results of the investigation‚ which was completed in good faith and which Sage had a responsibility to undertake as a COPE [Committee on Publication Ethics] member and to fulfill its responsibility as publisher of the journal. Sage’s primary goal and obligation is‚ as it has been for over 50 years‚ to maintain the highest integrity of the academic publishing process. Any suggestion that politics enters into this mission is without basis and is highly insulting.” Sage claimed that one of the reasons for the retractions was that the researchers did not disclose conflicts of interests. The journal claimed that they were deceived by the CLI researchers and that they did not disclose “blatant conflicts.” Studnicki‚ however‚ said that they had made clear that their work was funded by the Charlotte Lozier Institute and that they had detailed numerous times their affiliations. The institute is the research arm of the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America group. Both articles cited by Kacsmaryk state at the bottom‚ “This work was supported by the Charlotte Lozier Institute.” Tessa Longbon‚ another author on the studies‚ said that Sage was demonstrating a double-standard with the conflict of interests claim‚ pointing to numerous studies published with Sage Journals where authors affiliated with pro-abortion groups did not disclose conflicts of interests.  For example‚ in one article published by Sage advocating for mifepristone access‚ no competing interests were declared despite the fact that the lead author is an abortion proponent and the other authors were members of an academic center that promotes abortion. No conflict of interests were declared in another article from Sage Journals written by a researcher with the openly pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.  In its letter to the researchers‚ Sage said that the assertion that they hold pro-life and pro-abortion authors to a different standard was “baseless and needlessly provocative.” The researchers responded by again pointing out the apparent double standard. “[If] Sage now purports to have always required ideological disclosures‚ Sage itself has not maintained that standard it seeks now to impose on us‚” the authors said. “Despite Sage’s dismissal of this point as ‘unsupported‚’ a cursory search clearly demonstrates that Sage journals have published dozens of articles on abortion access and safety by researchers affiliated with organizations with very public and open positions on abortion.” Another issue that Sage took with the studies‚ according to its correspondence with the authors‚ was that a reviewer on the article was affiliated with the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Studnicki‚ however‚ said that SAGE selects reviewers and the articles went through a double -blind process‚ meaning that the authors did know who was reviewing the article and the reviewers did not know whose work they were reviewing.  “We did not select the reviewer at issue‚ and the reviewer’s identity is still unknown to us. In fact‚ this reviewer may not have been a CLI associate scholar at the time of his/her review. Likewise‚ because Sage practices double-blind peer review‚ the reviewer was equally unaware of our identities when evaluating our work‚” the researchers told Sage. Sage took issue with some of the methodological decisions made by Studnicki and other researchers. It criticized the November 2021 study because it used emergency room visits to measure complications from abortions. Using Medicaid data‚ the researchers had tracked emergency room visits for women who had confirmed abortions within 30 days of the visit. The researchers broke down the visits into categories‚ including abortion related visits. Some critics said an adverse reaction to an abortion should only be counted if the visit involves surgery or hospitalization‚ but Studnicki disagrees.  ”I think that if a woman has an abortion and she starts to bleed or she starts to have serious pain or she sees some sort of discharge that is indicative of an infection‚ she goes to an emergency room‚ I think that is a serious adverse event and a complication‚” he said.  Studnicki said that none of the issues raised by Sage invalidate the research. He said the concerns are just a matter of researchers deciding to measure things in different ways‚ and not a matter of faulty data.  Despite the retractions‚ Studnicki said that he and his fellow researchers will continue to produce quality work‚ saying that it was a badge of honor to be targeted by pro-abortion advocates “This is the greatest testimony to the strength of our science that one could possibly hope for. We are doing all the right things. We intend to continue to do the right things‚ but it’s probably going to be harder to get things published because they are trying to tarnish our reputation‚” he said.

The president of El Salvador‚ Nayib Bukele‚ appears to have just won re-election by the single largest margin in modern democratic history. The official results aren’t final yet‚ but he reportedly captured nearly 90% of the vote. That’s a massive jump from five years ago‚ when he received a little over 50% . Outside of North Korea‚ you don’t see numbers like this very often. They sound way too high to be real. But in El Salvador‚ they’re not that surprising. All of the polls predicted precisely this outcome. There were massive parties in the streets celebrating Bukele’s re-election before it even happened. So‚ when Bukele was named the winner‚ everyone saw it coming. It made sense. There were no angry mobs storming parliament‚ alleging fraud or putting their feet up on some politician’s desk. Instead‚ this weekend‚ here’s what El Salvador looked like: Previously‚ I’ve gone into some detail about why Nayib Bukele is so popular. But I can restate it here very quickly because it’s not that complicated. Bukele is historically popular‚ and was just reelected by a vast margin‚ because he puts his own country first. He protects his own people‚ looks out for their security and well being‚ and makes his communities safer and more livable. That’s it. It’s that simple. When Bukele took office‚ gangs controlled roughly 80% of the country. These gangs had killed more than 100‚000 citizens over the past three decades‚ making El Salvador one of the most dangerous countries on the planet. But shortly after he took office‚ Bukele started rounding up everyone affiliated with these criminal gangs — who usually weren’t hard to spot‚ given that most of them have tattoos making their affiliation very clear.  This infuriated “civil liberties” groups‚ but it worked. Homicides in El Salvador are down 92% compared to 2015. 90% of the country views Bukele favorably as a result‚ and it’s not hard to see why. They can go out at night without getting shot. They can operate businesses without getting extorted. Of course that won’t stop civil liberties groups from complaining‚ claiming that some people in El Salvador are now falsely accused of gang involvement. They want us to believe that El Salvador’s government should err on the side of protecting civil liberties at all cost. “It’s better for 100 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to go to prison‚” as the common refrain goes. The problem with this argument‚ which is now obvious to everyone in El Salvador‚ is that you can’t enjoy civil liberties when there’s a total breakdown of law and order.  You don’t have any constitutional rights whatsoever when you’re dead. The civil libertarians had their chance in El Salvador‚ and they failed to safeguard civil liberties.  WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show The history is very clear on this. In 2012‚ El Salvador’s president at the time brokered a truce with the country’s most powerful gangs — MS-13 and the 18th Street Gang. The idea was that showing leniency might lower the murder rate. To that end‚ many gang leaders were transferred from maximum-security prisons to low-security prisons. Gangs also had free rein to expand their territory and communicate with their leaders in prison. The result? Within two years‚ the truce broke down. The violence resumed. And El Salvador became one of the most dangerous countries in the world‚ averaging 105 homicides per 100‚000 people. El Salvador learned from that mistake. In fact‚ El Salvador’s government went on to pursue criminal charges against the former president who brokered that truce. There is not a single reasonable person in El Salvador who believes in “compromise” anymore‚ because they know where that leads. The country is now overwhelmingly in favor of enforcing the rule of law‚ without regard for the concerns of humanitarians or civil liberties organizations.  Whether you think that’s a good outcome or not — and again‚ almost everyone in El Salvador thinks it’s good — it really doesn’t matter. What happened in El Salvador will happen eventually in any country that disregards its duty to protect its citizens. At a certain point‚ people can’t take it anymore. They restore order‚ one way or the other. I wanted to begin with El Salvador because the situation there is such an obvious and important contrast with what happened in Washington‚ DC this weekend. Unlike the leaders of El Salvador‚ politicians in this country are still committed to some platonic ideal of “compromise‚” rather than upholding their constitutional duty to protect this country and the American citizens who live here. To that end‚ even as hundreds of thousands of illegals stream across the border every month — including criminals from places like El Salvador — a bipartisan group of US senators just agreed on a “border deal” that would do absolutely nothing to secure the southern border. I’m going to elaborate on what this bill would do because it’s such an unbelievable betrayal that it’s actually hard to believe it’s real. But before that‚ it’s important to emphasize that no “border bill” or compromise is necessary at all. Under existing laws‚ including the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952‚ the president of the United States can turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he determines that it’s necessary to safeguard this country. There is no requirement that we entertain fraudulent asylum claims‚ or even legitimate asylum claims (as rare as they are). There is no requirement that we allow a single noncitizen into this country‚ period. All that’s necessary to secure the border is for the president of the United States to start enforcing the law. This does not need to be complicated. We don’t even need an El Salvador-style crackdown to accomplish this. We just need to enforce existing laws as they stand. But if the White House actually adopted a simple‚ straightforward solution to the border crisis‚ then two things would happen. One‚ the Democratic Party would lose out on hundreds of thousands of future loyal voters‚ because their longstanding plans for demographic replacement would be stymied. And two‚ Congress would miss out on a great chance to launder millions of dollars. And Congress never misses out on an opportunity like that‚ so here we are. Here are the details. The border proposal that the Senate is advancing would allocate another $60 billion in military aid to Ukraine. It would send $14 billion in military aid to Israel. That’s a grand total of $74 billion that’s going to other countries. By comparison‚ the bill would allocate just $20 billion for border security. To restate: our leaders just agreed to a plan that would spend roughly 400% more tax money on foreign countries than on securing our own borders. And it gets worse. Even the money that’s supposedly going to be used at the border will actually just facilitate the illegal entry of millions of illegal aliens into this country. Specifically‚ the legislation would provide another $2.3 billion to‚ “refugee and entrant assistance activities‚” including “grants or contracts with qualified organizations‚ including nonprofit entities‚ to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services‚ including … housing assistance‚ medical assistance‚ legal assistance‚ and ease management assistance.” So that’s more than $2 billion to support the Left-wing nonprofits that exist to find creative ways to sneak as many illegal migrants into this country as possible. We’re even throwing free legal services for illegals in there as well‚ just to sweeten the pot. This bill is actually creating more incentives for illegals to come here. You may have seen reporting that the bill states that the Executive Branch must close the border on an emergency basis if‚ “during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days‚ there is an average of 5‚000 or more aliens who are encountered each day” — or‚ if “on any 1 calendar day‚ a combined total of 8‚500 or more aliens are encountered.” That’s how various outlets‚ including NBC News‚ have reported on this bill. It’s also how Oklahoma Senator James Lankford — who’s supposedly a Republican — has pitched this legislation. They all say that once 5‚000 people come in every day for a week‚ then the border has to be shut down.  Here’s what Lankford wrote last night: “The emergency authority is not designed to let 5‚000 people in‚ it is designed to close the border and turn 5‚000 people around.” But that’s not true‚ for three reasons. First of all‚ the bill gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this “border emergency” authority at any time. He can simply ignore the bill‚ effectively. So can the DHS secretary‚ Alejandro Mayorkas. The House is impeaching Mayorkas next week while the Senate will be voting to give him massive discretion to …not enforce the border. Why would any Republican vote for this? https://t.co/7PI8uqIWfJ — J.D. Vance (@JDVance1) February 5‚ 2024 Secondly‚ the bill doesn’t even count unaccompanied minors from countries other than Canada or Mexico in the number of encounters. In other words‚ many illegal migrants from Guatemala‚ Haiti‚ El Salvador‚ India‚ Honduras‚ the Philippines‚ China etc. — just flat-out don’t count towards the 5‚000 total. They’re illegal migrants‚ but they’re just not relevant‚ apparently. And then‚ on top of all that‚ the bill doesn’t actually close the border‚ even if this fraudulent “5‚000-migrant threshold” is reached. This is a direct quote from Senator Chris Murphy‚ one of the authors of the bill‚ from last night: “[The bill contains] a requirement that the President … funnel asylum claims to the land ports of entry when more than 5‚000 people cross a day. The border never closes‚ but claims must be processed at the ports.” Catch the contradiction there? Chris Murphy‚ one of the bill’s authors‚ says: “The border never closes.” At the same time‚ James Lankford‚ another of the bill’s authors‚ says‚ “It is designed to close the border.” 5/ A requirement the President to funnel asylum claims to the land ports of entry when more than 5‚000 people cross a day. The border never closes‚ but claims must be processed at the ports. This allows for a more a more orderly‚ humane asylum processing system. — Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) February 4‚ 2024 So our leaders are either liars‚ or they’re bumbling idiots who can’t even keep their story straight. Or maybe both. But if you read the bill‚ the implications of the text are pretty obvious. It says that once we hit 5‚000 illegals per day for a week‚ we don’t actually close the border. Instead we direct them to ports of entry‚ where they can make their asylum claims‚ and then enter the country from there. So this is a complete scam‚ essentially. And it’s intended to be a scam that runs for a very long time. The bill has a sunset provision three years into the future. The idea is to bind a future Trump administration to the terms of this deal. Now you might say — wait a minute. Let’s say that the 5‚000-person threshold is reached. And then these migrants have to report to a port of entry and make an asylum claim. Surely‚ you might think‚ we wouldn’t simply allow all of these migrants into the country‚ right? That would be insane. But if you thought that‚ you’d be wrong. In one key respect‚ this border compromise would actually lessen the already minimal standard for allowing asylum applicants into this country. Right now‚ migrants who arrive at a port of entry supposedly need to show a “significant possibility” that they can establish a “credible fear of persecution” on the basis of race‚ national origin‚ political beliefs‚ or membership in a social group. This isn’t a very high standard. It doesn’t require migrants to present any evidence for anything they say. They can just make a claim‚ which they’ve rehearsed‚ and get into this country. That’s the status quo. But this border bill would lower that standard even further‚ from requiring a “significant possibility of persecution” to “reasonable possibility of persecution.” So in practice‚ we can assume there’s basically no way anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned away. And then‚ once these fake asylum applicants are here‚ this bill will shower them with new benefits‚ including guaranteed work permits and free lawyers. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP And there are other giveaways in here as well. For example‚ family units and “unaccompanied minors” will be released into the country when they’re caught. They won’t even be detained. I could go on‚ but suffice it to say‚ this proposed bill is an abomination. It’s not simply inadequate or ineffective at securing the border. It makes the border even less secure than it already is — which is a remarkable feat that few‚ if any‚ people imagined was even possible. Fortunately‚ it does appear as of today that the House will not consider this Senate bill. The speaker‚ Mike Johnson‚ and majority leader Steve Scalise have said it’s “dead on arrival” and won’t even receive a vote in the House. That’s good news‚ but it doesn’t begin to explain why Senate Republicans thought this bill was reasonable in the first place. And it doesn’t get us any closer to securing the southern border. We are in this position for one reason‚ which is that we’ve assembled a government composed almost entirely of anti-Bukeles — people who despise their own citizens and whose top priority is the safety and security of countries thousands of miles from their own shores. And they know it‚ because when you point out their complete dereliction of duty‚ they don’t defend their record. They don’t offer any explanation for how they’re keeping illegal immigrants out of the country. Instead they call you a racist and say you’re a bad person for asking them questions. That’s what happened just a few months ago at a hearing in the Senate. Watch as the DHS Secretary‚ Alejandro Mayorkas‚ responds to questioning from Josh Hawley: US: Jewish Secretary of Homeland Security justifies his failure to stop mass immigration into US by saying his mother was a holocaust survivor Mayorkas reminds me of the jewish British immigration minister Barbara Roche who said she supports immigration because she is jewish pic.twitter.com/HSGlTuXcEX — Klaus Arminius (@Klaus_Arminius) February 4‚ 2024 This is a guy who‚ under this new border bill‚ has total discretion over whether to turn people away at the border or not. Mayorkas justifies his failures on the border by commenting that his mother was a Holocaust survivor. It makes no sense and has no relevance to anything. But it does show you how little respect these people have for our intelligence. And it’s not just the Biden administration that thinks like this. Republicans in the Senate just agreed to this bill. And keep in mind — Democrats are getting decimated in the polls. Most Americans do not support this administration. There is no political calculation that justifies any Republican Party support for this proposal. But Republicans in the Senate backed it anyway. Whatever the reason for that — maybe they wanted to reward their donors or interest groups‚ or maybe they’re completely incompetent — it’s irrelevant. These people simply cannot lead us any longer. No one is buying the idea that we need a lengthy‚ multi-billion dollar giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to enforce the law and defend this country from invasion. No one seriously thinks it’s appropriate to pay foreign countries vast sums of money to secure their borders‚ while we allocate a fraction of that money to open our borders up even more. It’s just too much.These people have looted the treasury for too long. Because of what they’ve done‚ America is careening at high speed towards its own El Salvador moment. And it can’t get here fast enough.

DeSantis is the most recent candidate to drop out

'Significant spending'

In what world does being large prohibit you from being in charge?

'He's the big target'

'If the Biden administration is serious'