'I will of course fully cooperate'

Why do so many Americans love Donald Trump? How has the former president changed since he left office and has faced significant legal attacks from the left? Historian Victor Davis Hanson, author of the newly updated “The Case for Trump,” analyzes Trump and what he means to the American people. This transcript is lightly edited, for length and clarity. Rob Bluey: You are out with an updated version of your fantastic book, “The Case for Trump,” newly updated and revised for the 2024 presidential election. So much has changed since you first published the book in 2019, including as you write, some remarkable things that have happened to Donald Trump, and frankly are happening in real time, even as we do this interview, in terms of whom he’s having to face off against for this presidential election. What was the motivation for you to update and write a new introduction for this book? Victor Davis Hanson: I was curious that people had not remarked that from Donald Trump’s status on January 7th of 2021 until I wrote the preface for the new book that was finished in April: It was really the most remarkable comeback in American political history, even more impressive than Richard Nixon’s phoenixlike rise after losing the [California] gubernatorial election to Pat Brown in 1962. I mean, so I wanted to know why that was and … part of the reason, of course, when I started the introduction, everybody was talking that [former South Carolina Gov. Nikki] Haley or [Florida Gov. Ron] DeSantis …  was going to easily win it. They were ahead of him in the polls, and then a series of miscalculations on the part of the Left, this use of lawfare. It started with a Mar-a-Lago raid, and then it accelerated into the Fani Willis-Alvin Bragg-the E. Jean Carroll—the Letitia James and the Jack Smiths in succession. And that was all juxtaposed to the asymmetrical treatment that was given by [special counsel] Robert Hur to [President] Joe Biden for probably just as egregious, if more egregious, removal of files. And all of the people who had never been tried under these statutes, whether in Georgia or … in Manhattan. And then I tried to juxtapose that again with two impeachments never happened, impeachment and a trial of a private citizen. We never had that. Sixteen states tried to remove him from the ballot. And of course, we had the collusion that continued on well after [former FBI Director] Robert Mueller; it still does. And then we had the laptop disinformation that discredited those 51 intelligence [agents]. So, I charted that step-by-step, insidious attack on him and the boomerang effect that it had. And then there grew up in an admiration for Trump that anything that didn’t kill him seemed to be in a Nietzschean sense to make him stronger. Bluey: You called it a miscalculation on the part of the Left in terms of the lawfare. Why do you think that that backfired in the way that it did? Hanson: I think they were too blatant. I think what really got them in trouble was, again, this asymmetrical, the people said, Well, Joe Biden, for 30 years as a senator, took out files. And he never notified anybody, contrary to what he claimed until he appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel. Then, he got worried that somebody might investigate him. So, then he kind of in a false, pseudo-manner came forward and said, “Maybe I have some.” And then the more you learned about it, his ghostwriter was having, had access to those classified files, which he didn’t have with security clearance. And then he destroyed subpoena evidence from Robert Hur. He wanted to get the transcripts and the tapes, and he destroyed them. He was not prosecuted. I think anybody looked at the photos of Joe Biden’s garage compared to Mar-a-Lago saw that it was far less secure. He had more multiple places to put these files. And finally, that just became overwhelming. People just said, “Well, if Robert Hur thinks he’s guilty, but he’s cognitively unable,” that was very, that was the beginning of this kind of consensus. Well, if he’s cognitive, unable, and think some things, then he’s cognitively unable to be president. And that kind of trailed on, all the way to the removal of [Biden as candidate]. The same argument arose again. If he’s unable to be a candidate, then he’s unable to be president. And then the kind of the doctoring, these performance art, virtue-signaling way in which they raided Mar-a-Lago, the sort of sloppy rearrangement of the files as if Donald Trump had them all scattered over the floor. It was just one thing after another. People just kind of said, “These people are out of control.” And then, the judges especially, they were, whether it was [Judges Juan Marchan or Arthur Engoron], they were partisans. They were Democratic. Their families were Democratic. They had said things in the past. The Letitia James and Fani Willis and Alvin Braggs boast that they were going to “get” Trump, the use of that boast for campaign fundraising. I think the American people, finally said, this is, as Trump said, a rigged, rigged series of indictments. Bluey: As you mentioned, it’s not that Trump didn’t face opposition. There were a number of formidable Republicans, including the governor of Florida, quite popular coming off a significant victory in his second [election], to earn a second term, and Nikki Haley. Why do you believe that the Republican or conservative voters decided it was better to stick with Trump than go with an alternative like one of them? Hanson: Their argument was ostensibly logical. Their argument was, “We support the MAGA agenda, but we don’t have the baggage of Donald Trump,”, baggage which they defined as tweeting or extraneous comments or something, as he said about Nikki Haley’s racial heritage. And they would say, We won’t do that, but we can enforce the border. We’ll get tough on China, et cetera, et cetera, in the MAGA sense of a populist, nationalist party. And the more that people saw them, they concluded two things: No. 1, that Trump, the person, was integral to the MAGA agenda just because he gave a sense that he was not a politician. He didn’t care what happened to him. And he was their bulldog that they would cut the leash and point in the right direction. Or the others, although they were excellent politicians, they still did not have the ability to shock the world. And we thought that was a positive trait, but the electorate, I think, thought it was negative. The other thing is, and I pointed this out in the end, they were put in an impossible situation because as this unfair and really indiscriminate use of the legal system to punish an ex-president and leading campaign, their reaction to it was a lose-lose situation. Because if they sympathize with what Trump was going through, then they were aiding the Trump cause. If they objected to what Trump was doing, then they were seen as traitorous and siding with the lawfare. So, they tried to find, both of them tried to find a middle ground where they would say something like, This should have never happened, but it wouldn’t have happened to me because I wouldn’t have exposed myself to what they were trying to do to me. And that was the perfect, seemingly, that was the perfect squaring the circle, but it tended to, for the electorate, think, well, “You’re just trying to excuse what they’re doing.” They would go after you, no matter what you said. And they never could resolve that dichotomy. Bluey: Does it surprise you at all that Donald Trump, being this obviously very successful businessman from New York, somebody who doesn’t necessarily seem like an everyday American, yet still has this popular appeal with so many individuals across this country. In all 50 states, obviously, he’s not competitive in all 50, but I mean, there are MAGA movements all over this country. What is it about his character, personality, or policies that makes him so popular? Hanson: Two things: When he came in, in 2015, the Bush-McCain-Romney consensus was that the white working class, I think John McCain called them “Hobbits” or “crazies.” Their view of the white working class was similar to the Hillary [Clinton] “deplorable” or “clinger” [Barack] Obama view. And they felt they were a liability. And they, remember, they had picked, I thought, a completely unqualified head of the [Republican National Committee] Michael Steele, to emulate Obama. And they had this position paper that said, We’re going to lose, because demographics are against us, and they’re bringing in people. And they were for open borders. And so, the idea was, We have to play down the rule of law. We have to go with the flow. We have to out-Obama, Obama. Trump came in and said, No, all you have to do is be authentic and protect the rights of people based on their class, the middle class. And I’ll try to make a radical change. I will try to substitute class for race, so that somebody who lives along the border who’s Mexican American will have more in common with me than the Harvard B.A., Senate staffer who runs for his congressional [district] that happens to be Hispanic. So, that really helped him that he said, We’re going to look at the class. And he said in particular the white working class is not spent.  The reason that the Republicans have lost seven, haven’t won 51% of the popular vote since the defeat of Michael Dukakis [in 1988] was because people aren’t voting. They’re not getting out. They have no reason. They feel that McCain or Romney or the Bushes are the same as the … whether that’s true or not, that was a perception. And then I think the other thing was authenticity. I mentioned in the original book that he came to Tulare, California. They always have the props up there. They have hay bales. They give the guy the Caterpillar hats about 20 miles, 25 miles from where I’m speaking today, my farm, and it was [then-Rep] Devin Nunes’ [congressional district in California]. He would always remark on that, that Republicans would come. They would put on work shirts, bluejeans, boots, and then they would not twang, but they would kind of do what Hillary or Kamala Harris or Obama did. They would modulate their persona. The particular day that Trump came, and I’m just using this as an example of what he did across the country: It was about 105 [degrees]. He wore a black suit, the red tie, the black shoes, the grating Queens accent, and he never changed. He was sweating. He still had his orange tan, his blond hair, and people thought, whatever he is, he’s authentic. And when he goes in front of the black journalists, most Republican candidates would not have replied the way he did. They would have been polite, much more polite, but they would have accepted the premise that it was kind of rigged, that Kamala Harris deliberately said she was going to go, then backed out, that he was late, there was no Zoom, and yet he authentically said, I don’t care what people say, I’m going to attack a black female journalist because what she did was misleading to me. That’s what he did. So, they feel that whatever audience he’s confronting or addressing or whatever interview, he’s always the same. And from what we just saw about Kamala Harris, when she’s with an LGBT community, she sounds like she’s a San Francisco politician. When she addresses a black audience in the South, and she starts to say, “you all.” And just like Hillary did, you know, I came, I had come too far … and that kind of stuff. And people don’t, I think that’s, they don’t like that. They don’t like that modulation. Bluey: I agree. And seeing how Trump reacted to that first question at the [National Association of Black Journalists] conference was so classic Trump. I mean, he, as you said, was not willing to accept the premise and was willing to call out the journalist for doing it. So, I think that that authenticity does speak. … You talked about, and you write about in this updated version, how he’s overcome the adversity. And obviously, your book, you had to have this published at a certain point. There have been a lot of developments just within the last month, the month of July, and we can start with the assassination attempt and talk about bouncing back from a traumatic experience. Tell me about your observations about how Trump has reacted to that fateful moment. Hanson: That could not be scripted, and he came within a quarter-inch of having his brains blown out. That’s traumatic. I was embedded twice in Iraq, and on the second time coming home, a rocket came and hit the tarmac and bounced up or it would have got all of us. … The point I’m making is that all was going through his head, and yet he went right back on the campaign trail, and people acted, they were making fun of him—It wasn’t really a head shot. It was his ear. Maybe it was glass. Maybe it was shrapnel. I mean, it was pretty incredible how the Left just went right after him. He deserved it, et cetera. And yet he was on phase, and he got right back into the campaign. And he couldn’t have scripted that. So, I think it reminded people that, at 78, … he took all of these [COVID-19] drugs they gave him, monoclonal antibodies … and all of a sudden he was out bragging about monoclonal antibodies—I love those antibodies. You’ve got to all take those antibodies. Look at me. I feel strong. I’m robust. Well, I don’t care how robust he is. If you have a 102 temperature, and you have pneumonia, starting to get pneumonia, and you’re in the hospital, and five days later, you’re addressing 80,000 people, y.ou cannot feel well. And yet no one, I don’t think anybody’s ever seen Trump sick or feel like he’s sick. Or he never says, “I don’t feel well today.” So, there’s something that’s almost supernatural about his ability to get very little sleep. And that radiates, especially it was vis-a-vis Biden. And so that was the remarkable thing about the [assassination bid]. If I could just say that he’s going to have a very tough race because everybody says, well, the Democrats are going to be playing catch-up because they don’t have an official candidate. They sort of coronated Kamala Harris. They removed Biden. There’s all sorts of hypocrisies and lying involved in that process that can come out. But everyone knows that Kamala Harris has the same cognitive inability to communicate that Joe Biden did, but for different reasons. And they have a paradigm in 2020 that overcame that. They put Biden off-limits to reporters. He didn’t address large crowds. He never gave a non-teleprompted speech. They counted on this new change, where 70% of the electorate and most of the swing states would not vote on Election Day, and the majority that did that would be Democrats … .The rejection rate dived … as the amount of ballots swarmed. And then finally, they repackaged Joe as “old Joe Biden from Scranton, the moderate [who] was going to unite us.” They feel that that worked. And you can already see that, in the 13 days that she’s been anointed, and Biden withdrew from the race, she hasn’t given an interview. She hasn’t spoken to a crowd that’s unscripted. When she was at the tarmac [last week] with the hostages [returning from Russia], she just had one minute to explain. And in that one minute, she confirmed every suspicion that she cannot speak. She just said,This is the art of diplomacy, and diplomacy is very important, and I really support diplomacy. And even Joe Biden, in his challenged state, looked at her like he was, “What is she saying?” I can’t fathom them. So, they’re going to keep her off the campaign trail. They’re going to rely on early and mail balloting. And as we also see, they’re going to say there is no such thing as Kamala Harris prior to July 21. This is the new, new Kamala Harris. Bluey: That’s right. They will. And unfortunately, many people in the legacy and establishment media will go along with that, as we’ve already seen in the time since she’s been introduced. Hanson: And remember, we don’t have two years to refute that. They only have 90 days, some 90 days. So, that was my original point, that Trump has an enormous obstacle, that given the time that will be eaten up by the Olympics or the Democratic Convention or the debates, he doesn’t have a lot of time to redefine her. So, redefine her. And I know that everybody on the conservative side wants to point out that she did adopt a different identity for the audience she was speaking to. She had an amorous relationship with [former San Francisco Mayor] Willie Brown that really jump-started her [career]. She had an undistinguished career as a prosecutor both in San Francisco and statewide as California attorney general, but unfortunately for them, they don’t have time to do that. I don’t see that, to get into that stuff, all they have time to do is to say, “This is what she was for” [and] show the clips. This is the most radical presidential candidate; far more radical than Jimmy Carter or Mike Dukakis or George McGovern. This is what she did as vice president, and this is what she will do if she’s [president], and if they can just hammer that in the way that the late [GOP campaign consultant] Lee Atwater did on Michael Dukakis. It was very similar. He came off as he kept saying, I’ve been looking at that campaign. [Dukakis] kept saying, “I’m not ideological. I’m not a liberal. I’m a competent governor. It’s about competence. It’s about technocracy. I engineered the Massachusetts miracle. This is not about George Bush, the conservative, or me, the Massachusetts liberal.” Then Lee Atwater stepped up and said, “Yes, it is. Here’s the Willie Horton ad. Here’s the tank ad. Here’s the Boston Harbor ad.” And when I got done, Atwater said, “I’m going to take the bark off you.” And the reason I’m mentioning this is Dukakis on August 1st [of 1988] was 17 points ahead in the polls. And when they got done with him, he lost almost by 8 points. It’s the same time frame that Trump has to work in. But the difference was, Lee Atwater sort of hijacked the Bush, elder Bush, aristocratic campaign. And once he was successful, if you remember, he died shortly of a brain tumor. He was asked to apologize to Dukakis. Everybody said, “We’re never going to do that again.” Basically, the Republican establishment said, at the national level, we would rather win ugly—excuse me, “We would rather lose nobly than win ugly.” And they never did quite that again, against Obama or Bill Clinton, and the result is, they’ve lost seven out of the last eight popular votes, and they’ve never won 51% since. So, Donald Trump, if he wants to win, is going to have to be, doesn’t have to be ad hominem. In fact, he shouldn’t, but he has to show everybody who [Harris] is, and why she won’t run on her record, and why she won’t tell us that she’s still proud of being a radical. And if he does that, he will win in the way that Bush did. If he doesn’t, he will lose. Bluey: You are a Californian, a native Californian. You obviously saw Kamala Harris up close in her variety of roles that she held in the Bay Area and then as a U.S. senator from California. You describe her as the most radical candidate, progressive Democratic candidate who’s ever run for president. Are there specific policy issues that stand out in your mind that you think would resonate with voters if Trump were to focus on them? Hanson: She was the one that told us in California that you cannot use the word “illegal alien,” even though we had the large, we had more illegal aliens at the time than all the other states put together. And we were running massive deficits. We still are. We have a $50 billion deficit. We have the fourth-largest reserves of natural gas and oil in the country. And yet, we’re the biggest consumer of oil. And we’re not using it. We’re importing $25 billion of energy from places like Kuwait and before, probably again, Iran, all these illiberal regimes. And she was the one who banned, as attorney general—she just toured the state—no fracking, no more offshore drilling, no horizontal drilling. And so, we have all of this energy that just sits there where we pay the highest prices of gas in the country. She was the one who was spearheading as … attorney general, this disastrous initiative, and she assured everybody, if you decriminalized theft, and that means that anything under $950 would be a misdemeanor, then you will have less crime, and you won’t have crowded prisons. And everybody said, well, the criminals are not stupid. They’re going to know what $950 is, and they’re going to steal $800 so they don’t commit a felony. And she thought that was absurd, and that’s exactly what happened. She was the one that said that we don’t want to criminalize homelessness. San Francisco has got the largest homeless population per capita in the country. She was the one that really was in, we in California are not in a permanent drought, as people say. Three years ago, we had the wettest year in history. But during her tenure, as attorney general, we had some wet years, but there was a policy developed by the [Govs. Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom] administrations, in which we let 90% of the stored water out to the ocean. And we put thousands, if not a million acres of agricultural land that had contractual water agreements, both for the state water project and the federal government, and we didn’t give them any water. She was, she was a principal on that movement as well. And so, and then of course, the craziest thing is San Francisco is $800 million in debt, right as we speak, and the state is $50 billion in debt. And she was the one that pushed reparations. And she was asked specifically, “Are you for reparations?” And she said, yes, without even noting that California had always been a free state, that the black population was only about [2-1/2 to 3%], and more importantly, that 27% of the people who live in California were not born in the United States. So, the idea that they’re culpable for something that happened, you know, 170 years ago in the Civil War, it was just mind-boggling. So, she always promotes these ideas to particular receptive audiences. And this gives a great advantage to the Trump administration, because she’s never spoken in California. There is no such thing as an adversive or opponent audience. And she didn’t do that in her misadventure as a primary candidate. So, she has never spoken in her entire life to a hostile crowd. And she can’t do it. And what that does to her, she doesn’t just say that she’s on the left, she says, “I’m a radical,” or she doesn’t just say, “I’m for reparations.” She says, “Let me be clear about it.” She doesn’t just say, “We should have no private health care. Let’s just get done with it and start over.” So, she emphatically doubles down, and that gives people an advantage to say, “Look, she was emphatic!” And the other thing is, which is, I’ll finish is, that she’s the first presidential candidate, I think, in modern history that has never entered a primary, much less won a primary, and got the nomination. She’s never entered a primary, and I don’t know how that can happen, but what it shows you is that she’s never, ever gone before a mixed audience and tried to make the case for her views. She’s always assumed that everybody in the audience and all the reporters agree with her. So, to ingratiate herself, she has been more left than they are. Bluey: As I listen to you go through those different issues, I recall seeing recently Scott Rasmussen’s poll from RMG Research, which showed that Donald Trump holds a double-digit advantage on so many of those issues, whether it be economy, inflation, immigration, border, crime. You go down the list. I mean, he held this double-digit advantage, by the way, over Biden. And now he also holds it over Harris. Yet at the same time, you look at a lot of these battleground states and the race is tightening up. And so, you have said that, in your updated book, that Donald Trump has overcome this adversity before. Obviously, we’ve seen in the last couple of years what he’s had to endure. Do you remain an optimist today about his chances, or are you pessimistic about this here in the beginning of August? Hanson: I think he has a lot better team that he had in 2020, and I’ve looked at some of the early commercials, and they do reflect that theme of trying to remind everybody who she is. And so, again, because every single issue that Harris has embraced is unpopular and doesn’t poll anywhere near 50%, and she was not only for it for 30 years, but she helped implement it as vice president, all Donald Trump has to do is translate the opposition to those issues to her, and the two obstacles that he has is, she won’t be anywhere around. She’s hiding, and she’s outsourced her defense to the media and journalists and the big money from [Big Tech] and Wall Street for ads. And two, to the degree that she does give scripted interviews, they’re going to phrase the questions, or she’s going to have an audience in such a way that she’s going to say, “Donald Trump was for open borders. I’ve never been for open borders. I want all sorts of energy. I don’t want to hurt that.” And that’s going to be very hard to penetrate in 90 days. But again, Lee Atwater did it in 90 days, and Michael Dukakis, to tell you the truth, had actually been a governor, and he was a far better-spoken candidate. He was a much kinder person, and yet they were able to reveal that he was disingenuous. So, they can do it, but if they get into cul de sacs about, “Let’s talk about her, what percentage she’s black or Indian or her cackling.” That’s all known to the electorate. They don’t have to be reminded. All it is is fodder for the journalist when he does that. But they do not want to talk about who she is and what she’s been for and what she will do. Bluey: Well, that’s sage advice, as always, from Victor Davis Hanson, an author of the newly updated book, “The Case for Trump.” Thank you so much, sir, for all of the things that you do, your contributions to The Daily Signal, your column, as I mentioned earlier, one of the most popular things that we publish every week. And so, we appreciate you spending time with us today. Hanson: Thank you for having me again. The post Victor Davis Hanson Unpacks Trump’s Appeal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Under the Biden-Harris administration, at least 99 illegal aliens on America’s terrorist watchlist have been released into the United States, according to a congressional report.  “As if the record-breaking number of border encounters of illegal aliens on the terrorist watchlist is not concerning enough, the Biden-Harris administration has released some of the aliens into the interior of the United States,” says the new report from the House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.  From the start of fiscal year 2021 through the end of fiscal 2023, the Border Patrol says, it encountered 282 illegal aliens on the terrorist watchlist between ports of entry at the southern border. Since the start of fiscal 2024 on Oct. 1, the Border Patrol has encountered an additional 93 foreign nationals on the terrorist watchlist along the border.  Those illegal aliens came from a total of 36 countries, the report says, including nations with “an active terrorist presence such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.”  The terrorist watchlist includes “individuals who represent a potential threat to the United States, including known affiliates of watchlisted individuals,” according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, parent agency of the Border Patrol and itself part of the Department of Homeland Security. Amid growing conflict in the Middle East following Hamas’ terrorist attacks Oct. 7 in Israel, several recent encounters at the border raised security concerns.  In July, for example, Border Patrol agents arrested three Palestinian illegal immigrants after the discovery of their possible ties to terrorist organizations.  In June, the Department of Homeland Security identified over 400 illegal aliens as a “concern” because they were brought to the U.S. through an ISIS-affiliated human smuggling network. Although over 150 of them reportedly have been arrested, the location of the others is unknown.  Also in June, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested eight illegal aliens from Tajikistan after it was discovered that they had possible ties to ISIS, a terrorist group. The eight originally had been released into the U.S. because initial vetting at the border didn’t produce any security concerns.  The release of illegal aliens with ties to ISIS highlights a theme of the House Judiciary Committee’s report—a lack of vetting and proper information led to the release of illegal immigrants on the terrorist watchlist.  “Instead of being vetted against databases in their home countries, illegal aliens are only screened against U.S. criminal databases and against Interpol,” according to the report, referring to the International Criminal Police Organization. In other words, if an illegal alien has committed crimes in his or her home country but not in the U.S., that border crosser is unlikely to be flagged as a threat.  The report details issues related to the lack of information sharing with immigration judges. For example, in February, authorities arrested Afghan national Mohammad Kharwin, who is on the terrorist watchlist, after he spent almost a year free in the U.S. But in March 2024, an immigration judge released Kharwin because the judge wasn’t told that the man was a security threat and part of a radical group designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. Kharwin was rearrested when media reports brought the case to light.   “The Kharwin case also illustrates how immigration judges—who hear immigration cases and can determine whether an alien should remain detained—are ill-equipped to handle national security-related cases,” the committee report concludes.  “That lack of information,” the report says, “also may explain why immigration judges granted bond to at least 27 watchlisted aliens who were encountered between ports of entry at the southwest border between fiscal years 2021 and 2023.”  Fortunately, as the committee report notes, DHS has begun changing some policies to grant immigration judges access to classified information regarding whether an illegal alien poses a national security threat.   The Border Patrol also has encountered thousands of other illegal aliens since October from nations that could pose a security threat to the U.S., according to the report:   As of June, during fiscal year 2024, Border Patrol nationwide has encountered … 2,134 Afghan nationals, 33,347 Chinese nationals, 541 Iranian nationals, 520 Syrian nationals, and 3,104 Uzbek nationals. These encounters also include 1,260 illegal aliens from Russia; 752 from Kyrgyzstan; 734 from Pakistan; 704 from Somalia; 433 from Kazakhstan; 123 from Yemen; and 62 from Lebanon. A chart in the House Judiciary Committee report. “The Biden-Harris administration continues to prioritize illegal aliens—including hundreds on the terrorist watchlist and many more terrorist-sympathizing counties—over the safety and security of the American people,” the report concludes.   The post 99 Illegal Aliens on Terrorist Watchlist Released Into US, Report Finds appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On the latest episode of “The Tony Kinnett Cast,” we watch half in amazement, half in horror as Vice President Kamala Harris puts all of her chips on Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. The self-proclaimed socialist has a wild history of far-left positions that have left many in the media scratching their heads in this crucial election. What’s his story? Is he the maverick needed to continue the Harris honeymoon, or will the history of riots, transgender policy, and radical abortion activism on his watch strip away crucial swing-state support? Kristan Hawkins from Students for Life stops by to dissect Walz’ abortion policies and walk us through the expected impact of a post-Roe v. Wade nation on the ballot box this November. What on earth happened to Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who was a finalist in Harris’ veepstakes, and what does this mean for knife’s-edge races in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia? Meanwhile, the open southern border has Americans looking over their shoulders as the FBI concedes potential terrorists are roaming unfettered in the United States while Iran continues to whip terrorist groups in the Middle East and abroad into a frenzy. Catch the live radio show and livestream weeknights at 7 p.m. EDT on The Daily Signal’s YouTube, X, or Facebook channels. The post WATCH: Harris Contracts ‘Walzheimers’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Moms across the country say Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is the most anti-parent running mate Vice President Kamala Harris could have chosen. “The worst part is that Walz claims to care about kids, but his policies have done nothing but hurt kids,” Rochester, Minnesota, mother of three Jeannine Buntrock told The Daily Signal. “Walz is a loyal soldier for the progressive movement, and will advance that cause, no matter the cost to Minnesotan families and children.” Walz has demonstrated “absolutely no respect for parents,” according to Moms for Liberty co-founder and mom of four Tiffany Justice. Walz Supports ‘Transgender Trafficking Bill‘ Walz signed a “transgender trafficking” law in May 2023, which allows kids to travel to Minnesota and receive medical interventions without parental knowledge or consent. Tim Walz signed HF146 into law. HF146 is a radical "Transgender Trafficking Bill” that shelters minors who travel across state lines to get trans surgeries without their parent's consent and denies parents custody of their children if they refuse to consent to mut*lat*on… pic.twitter.com/3hY0xtdhvS— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 6, 2024 Erin Lee, a Colorado mom of three whose daughter’s art teacher attempted to help her transition behind her parents’ backs, said she has serious concerns about Walz’ track record on gender ideology. “As a parent who had the state intervene in my family, I know the pain that it causes families when these laws impact their lives,” Lee told The Daily Signal. “It’s very real.” Laws in other states, which allow the termination of a parent’s custody for giving their child transgender medical interventions, will not be upheld in Minnesota due to the bill Walz signed into law. The bill describes “gender-affirming care” as “medically necessary.” But research has found that so-called gender-affirming care increases the likelihood that youth will attempt suicide. According to a study released in April, “Gender-affirming surgery is significantly associated with elevated suicide-attempt risks, underlining the necessity for comprehensive post-procedure psychiatric support.” The law cites sex-hormone suppression drugs and irreversible transgender surgeries as examples of “gender-affirming care.” Moms for Liberty leader Justice said these medical interventions shouldn’t be described as “care.” “It isn’t medical care,” she said. “It’s not what’s in the best interest of the child.” Walz Invites Anti-Parent Teacher to Minnesota Walz welcomed an openly anti-parent fifth-grade teacher from Florida, Jenna Barbee, to teach in Minnesota last May. The “rights as a parent, those rights are gone when your child is in the public school system,” Barbee said in an interview with CNN. Here's the video: https://t.co/BuWOlmCH6I— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) August 6, 2024 Justice said the idea of driving a wedge between parents and children is unacceptable. “They think the government knows better than parents do for their children, so every American parent should be concerned about Tim Walz being vice president of the United States if they want to protect their parental rights,” she said. ‘Trans Refuge’ Executive Order Walz issued an executive order on March 8, 2023, ensuring that Minnesota children can obtain irreversible transgender surgeries and sterilizing hormone treatments. The measures made Minnesota a “trans refuge” state, supporters said. While signing the order, Walz held the hand of 12-year-old boy who said he identified as a transgender girl. MN Governor @GovTimWalz signs a "gender-affirming" executive order to support transgender procedures.By his side at the photo op…A 12yo transgender child, a young boy, a little girl holding a stuffed animal, and his Lt Governor wearing a shirt with a knife on it ? pic.twitter.com/NuurOVMZ47— Clarity (@covid_clarity) March 16, 2023 A parent in another state may not take custody action against a co-parent in Minnesota who is transitioning a child. Walz’s executive order prevents other states from taking “child protection” action against parents who help their children “transition” to a boy or girl. The selection of Walz confirms that Democrats believe the state, not parents, are responsible for the upbringing of children, Fairfax County, Virginia, mom Stephanie Lundquist-Arora told The Daily Signal. “Walz felt this so strongly that he inserted himself in cases where parents had disputes about whether or not their children should have irreversible gender-transitioning surgeries, of course ruling by executive order in favor of the mutilation of children,” Lundquist-Arora said. Due to Walz’s executive order, state agencies do not allow a person in another state to limit a Minnesota parent’s contact with their child “because the parent/guardian sought to obtain or did obtain gender-affirming health care services for their child.” For example, a dad in Iowa could not take action against his ex-wife in Minnesota for attempting to make their 5-year-old child transgender. Colorado mom Lee has talked to divorced parents in such situations, she said. “I’ve talked to parents in almost all 50 states who have been affected by gender ideology, whose children have been taught to keep secrets, have been groomed, have been indoctrinated. have been caught up in these divorce situations, where they’re being medicalized against the will of one of their parents,” Lee said. “It’s already happening everywhere, whether or not these really extreme laws are in place. This ideology is affecting people everywhere.” “I absolutely fear that it could spread as a result of someone leading our country who is so adamantly pushing these ideologies on children,” Lee added. Falling Test Scores After COVID-19 Shutdowns Parents have also criticized Walz’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Minnesota Parents Alliance Executive Director Christine Trooien, a mother of three, told The Daily Signal: Everything from Walz’s response to COVID, to George Floyd, to “book bans” has been in lockstep with union agendas and talking points rather than the needs and values of everyday Minnesotans, which includes teachers. Only half of Minnesota students were proficient in reading in 2023, with 45.5% of students meeting math standards, according to Minnesota Department of Education data. Scores in math, reading, and science are each down about 10 percentage points compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic. Schools were closed intermittently throughout 2020-2021 and into the 2021-2022 school year. Many students were subjected to intermittent “distance learning” for two full years.  In the 2020-2021 school year, only 4% of students were in districts that offered high levels of in-person instruction, according to an American Experiment report. Because of Walz, Minnesota is a shell of what it used to be, said Minnesota mom Buntrock. She referred to Walz signing bills installing feminine hygiene products in boys’ bathrooms and enshrining abortion up until birth in state statutes. “There are now tampons in boy’s bathrooms. There are different codes of conduct and consequences for students, according to the color of their skin or other identity characteristics, and trafficked minors are brought to our state for abortions,” Buntrock said. “With different parental-notification laws, those trafficked girls could be saved.” Instead of serving Minnesotans, Walz has acted in accordance with the will of teachers unions, Trooien said. “Walz has been presented time and again with opportunities to unite and lead Minnesota out of the chaos of 2020, but instead, continues to follow a very narrow and divisive set of policy directives set by state and national teachers unions,” Trooien said. “As a result, K-12 test scores are at all-time lows, crime, violence, and taxes are at all-time highs, and families are fleeing Minnesota in record numbers.” Parents Defending Education senior adviser and Virginia mother Michele Exner said Walz’s education record has created setbacks for Minnesota families and students. “Since he has been in office, national testing scores have steadily declined, and the state’s education system ranking has taken a nosedive since 2018,” Exner said. “His radical progressive policies have prioritized menstrual products in boys’ bathrooms over tackling the education losses his own policies created.” Parents should never be excluded from decision-making in their children’s lives, Justice said. “Parents have the fundamental right to direct the education of their children, but not in Minnesota,” according to Justice. “Parents have the fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children, but not in Minnesota.” Mary Margaret Olohan contributed to this report. The post ‘No Respect for Parents’: Moms Fear Veep Pick Tim Walz appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. X Corp has initiated a lawsuit against the World Federation of Advertisers and several global companies including Unilever, Mars, CVS Health, and Ørsted A/S. The complaint, filed in the Northern District of Texas, accuses them of forming an advertising cartel that allegedly colluded to withhold advertising dollars from X Corp’s social media platform to enforce compliance with certain brand safety standards. We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here. According to the legal documents, this group, under the umbrella of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), orchestrated a boycott impacting the revenue streams of X significantly, following its acquisition of Twitter. The collective action allegedly aimed at maintaining stringent content moderation standards, a move X Corp argues went beyond competitive or consumer interest to serve the cartel’s shared economic goals. “The boycott and its effects continue to this day,” states the complaint, detailing how these actions have allegedly stifled competition and innovation in social media advertising. The complaint highlights internal communications within GARM celebrating the economic damage inflicted on X, which they claim fell “80% below revenue forecasts” due to the boycott. A focal point of the lawsuit is the alleged breach of the Sherman Act, asserting that the defendant’s actions constitute an unlawful restraint of trade. “In a competitive market, each social media platform would set its brand safety standards…but collective action among competing advertisers to dictate brand safety standards shortcuts the competitive process,” the lawsuit contends. Further exacerbating the issue, the House Judiciary Committee has taken an interest, with their investigation suggesting that the conduct of WFA and GARM “threatens fundamental American freedoms” and could be “likely illegal under the antitrust laws.” X Corp seeks not only compensatory damages but also injunctive relief to prevent future boycotts and ensure a fair competitive environment. Rumble has also joined forces with X in filing a comprehensive antitrust lawsuit against the key players in the advertising industry. We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here. GARM, with its cartel-like behavior, Rumble asserts, has orchestrated a boycott against it and similar platforms, unfairly cutting them off from vital advertising revenue streams. “The brand safety standards set by advertisers and their ad agencies should succeed or fail in the marketplace on their own merits and not through the coercive exercise of market power,” Rumble’s complaint reads. “All of this illegal conduct is done at the expense of platforms, content creators, and their users, as well as the agencies’ own advertiser clients who pay more for ads as a result of their collusion.” The lawsuit elaborates on the detrimental impact of this alleged collusion, stressing that it not only harms digital platforms and content creators by strangling their primary revenue sources but also inflates advertising costs. Consequently, this leads to higher expenses for the agencies’ own clients, spiraling into a broader negative impact on the digital advertising ecosystem. Adding a layer of gravity to their claims, both Rumble and X highlight ongoing investigations by the US House Judiciary Committee, which has expressed concerns that GARM’s actions might violate antitrust laws and impinge on fundamental American freedoms. With this legal action, Rumble seeks not only financial redress but also a judicial affirmation that the defendants’ actions are illegal, alongside a permanent injunction to halt these practices, signaling a critical juncture in the fight for fairness in digital advertising practices. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post X, Rumble File Lawsuit Against Pro-Demonetization Advertiser Cartel appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Live Primary Results: Squad Goals in MO, and Much More!

Former UFC champion Conor McGregor lashed out at former President Donald Trump over who the politician chose to call one of his favorite UFC fighters.Trump appeared on a livestream with 23-year-old content creator Adin Ross, which spawned several viral clips including from a Tesla Cybertruck and the former president's iconic dance moves.During a sit-down portion of the unorthodox interview, Ross asked the former president about his passion for mixed martial arts.'I would have thought USA ONLY would be the mentality here.'"I know you're a UFC fan; who are your favorite fighters?" Ross said."I think Khabib [Nurmagomedov] ... you know who Khabib is?" Trump replied. "Khabib was 29-0 ... but I don't think he ever lost a round. I think he was great."Trump quickly recalled a story about meeting the now-retired fighter at UFC 302 in June 2024, where Nurmagomedov asked him about the Israel-Palestine war. Trump then revealed that the undefeated fighter also talked to him about the Russia-Ukraine war."I met Khabib, and [he said], 'You're the man who can stop the war,' the war with Ukraine and Russia.""Because he knows there is people on both sides, with so many people dying on both sides," Trump continued. "We weren't talking about fighting, we were talking about a different kind of fighting, a much worse kind of fighting. He was very concerned about that whole thing."While the unique interview was seen as a victory for Gen Z Trump supporters and provided a lot of entertainment, McGregor was extremely displeased with the 45th president's choice of fighters.In a series of now-deleted posts on X, McGregor lambasted Trump for highlighting Nurmagomedov over American fighters."Campaign ending decision. A smelly fat mountain monkey from inbred mountains of Dagestan is your favorite UFC (AMERICAN COMPANY) fighter? Wow. Abysmal," McGregor wrote.The Irishman also asserted that Trump is not actually a billionaire before scolding him over not being "USA ONLY.""I was actually wrong. Couple hundred million he is worth. Not multi B. I would have thought USA ONLY would be the mentality here and what I would want to see out of my president, personally," McGregor said, according to BJPenn.com."Over all the American fighters that have backed him. It's a shocking decision. He was caught on the spot. That won't go unnoticed on the roster. This presidential race is very tight right now. More so now.”McGregor then threw more insults at the retired Nurmagomedov with a since-deleted photo of him and his training partners in a hot tub."Trumps favorite fighter. here he is in a tiny tub with his fellow inbred pals in Dagestan. Can you spot him? Where's Khabib? Find Khabib," McGregor continued."To pick a retired inbred fighter from Dagestan Russia who has 3 main events only to his name is astounding."The two fighters had an extremely volatile rivalry leading up to their fight at UFC 229 in 2018.Not only did the McGregor and Nurmagomedov continuously exchange harsh words in press conferences, McGregor shocked fans when he threw a dolly into the window of a UFC bus that had Nurmagomedov and other fighters sitting on it.Nurmagomedov went on to win the fight by a neck crank submission in the fourth round.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Massachusetts has taken bail reform to a new level, forcing law-abiding taxpayers to shoulder the added cost of springing defendants from jail at night or on weekends, when courthouses are typically closed.Since 2002, defendants in Massachusetts who want to be released from custody after hours have forked over a $40 fee to pay for a bail commissioner or magistrate to come to a police station to approve bail transactions or release the defendants on their own recognizance.'This shows how out of touch these politicians have become, completely severed from reality.'However, civil rights and social justice groups have since argued that such a system has a disproportional effect on certain racial groups, the Eagle Tribune claimed, and unfairly targets those of low income.Those arguments seem to have won the day. Last week, far-left Gov. Maura Healey signed a budget that not only doubles the fee to $80 but that shifts that cost to the Trial Court — and by extension, to state taxpayers."The trial court shall be responsible for paying fees charged to take bail outside of regular working hours and any fee charged under this section for a bail taken outside of regular working hours shall be charged only to the trial court. Fee splitting arrangements are prohibited," the relevant section of the budget reads in part.After fronting the $80 cost, bail commissioners or magistrates will then bill the Trial Court for reimbursement. Massachusetts lawmakers have already earmarked $4.8 million in the fiscal year 2025 budget to cover these costs.Trial Court spokeswoman Jennifer Donahue believes that this arrangement is much more just for alleged offenders, telling the Eagle Tribune that it lifts the "financial burden from the individuals who can least afford it."Donahue also noted that the change will likely encourage remote arraignments, further alleviating the inconveniences suffered by the accused. Remote hearings "shorten the time that individuals are held in custody, especially in rural areas, where traveling to the custodial facility could require an hour or more of travel," she claimed.MassFiscal spokesman Paul Craney disagrees, noting that the system is already overrun and that the $4.8 million allocated for the new policy could be better spent elsewhere. "The state budget has become so bloated, and lawmakers are abusing the taxpayers to such a degree, that now Statehouse politicians think it’s ok to have taxpayers fund bail," Craney told Blaze News."This shows how out of touch these politicians have become, completely severed from reality."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

MSNBC viewers were outraged at the progressive cable news channel after its celebrated polling expert outlined why he believes Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will not help the Democratic ticket much. Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris named Walz her candidate for vice president on Tuesday, leading many pundits to believe she was trying to shore up support among Midwest voters. 'You guys are f***ing just begging for all the right wing viewers. CLOWNS.'Steve Kornacki blew up that narrative by pointing to Walz's less than impressive electoral performance during recent elections. "This is where Democrats have lost ground, and Walz, in 2022, he didn’t gain any ground that the Democrats had lost. He didn't do that here; he didn't do that in other counties," said Kornacki while pointing to vote tallies. "This idea that he’s got automatic appeal with these small-town areas in those three key battleground states, you don’t see it in what he actually did on the ballot in 2022." While Kornacki is popular among most viewers, many were furious at his lack of loyalty to the Democratic Party. "Caught Kornacki on the radio while I was out. I swear that fcker searched every county in MN and chose the ones Walz did poorly in, just to have something negative to say," responded one viewer. "I guess you didn’t notice Dems flipped the legislature in Pa & Mn in the time frame you’re talking about … you have zero business being on the air," said another user. "Dude, wft of wrong with you? Can you really not wait a couple hours before raining down your little narcissistic pessimism? This is unbelievably stupid, truly," read another reply. "Jesus u guys must be really hurting for views too!? Adding u to the blocked list cya STEVE! All cnn and msnbc now moving to individual accounts. You guys are f***ing just begging for all the right wing viewers. CLOWNS," said another vibrant commentator. Republicans meanwhile assailed Walz for his support of transgender policies and for lax law enforcement during the violent George Floyd rioting in 2020. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!