'He is a far-leftist'

'We should be thanking our law enforcement'

The Senate confirmed four dozen of President Donald Trump’s nominees in a single vote on Thursday following Senate Republicans unilaterally changing the upper chamber’s rules last week. Senators voted 51 to 47 along party lines to confirm 48 of the president’s picks who will serve in positions across the federal government and represent the U.S. […]

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Something is happening in the United States and, I think, worldwide too. It’s almost as if there were fuel and the death of Charlie Kirk ignited it. It’s not a George Floyd movement at all, or moment. We’ve talked about that. It’s very different. It’s building up frustration. It’s not a top-down DEI mandate. It’s a grassroots kind of collective shrug throughout Western civilization. And I guess it could be characterized as enough is enough. We’re witnessing large-scale demonstrations in Ireland, Great Britain. The government of France has fallen, and French President Emmanuel Macron will have to appoint a new prime minister. There is unrest in the Netherlands. We used to think, during the Cold War, that Eastern Europe was supposedly backward, politically, under the Soviet sway, economically stagnant. But since the Cold War, and especially lately, the Eastern Europeans seem the most sensible of all Westerners. They believe in tradition. They believe in borders. They believe in legal-only immigration. They believe in fossil fuel development. And they have strong militaries because they’ve experienced Soviet aggression and German aggression in the past. And yet, they also are having a reinforcing moment. What is this moment? We’re seeing it in the United States with thousands of people commemorating the death of Charlie Kirk. There’s no tolerance for the usual left-wing, socialist craziness, the abhorrent, violent smears of conservatives who’ve died. And you don’t see major bureaucrats, or generals, or Hollywood figures—increasingly, they’re not coming out and rejoicing because they feel that they’re going to get a big pushback. This is not violent. It’s just a collective shrug. And what is the shrug, basically? It’s saying we’re tolerant of people with alternate lifestyles. But whether we like it or not, the nuclear two-parent family, for 2,500 years, has ensured the survival of Western civilization. It gives us two to three to four children, and we can reproduce the species. We’re tolerant of Islam and Buddhism, Hinduism. We have a multiracial, multicultural population. But whether we like it or not, the foundations of the United States are Judeo-Christian, as they are of Western civilization in general. We have no apologies for that. Sermon on the Mount is a unique document. We also are tired of what I call boutique anti-Americanism. We see Rep. Ilhan Omar suggesting that our elected government is worse than the dictatorship in Somalia; or we see Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calling President Donald Trump a fascist, as she has in the past; or we see Rep. Rashida Tlaib just demonizing and damning the United States, even though her parents fled the Middle East to come here. And we’re tired of it. It doesn’t mean we’re gonna outlaw free speech or try to use the same tactics as the critics of America do. But what we’re saying is, we’re a unique place. We’re better than the alternative. We don’t have to be perfect to be good. So, you can say all you want, but we’re gonna not just ignore you, we’re gonna do our best to make sure your voices have no influence. And that’s why people are taking to the street in Europe. They’re saying an open border and illegal immigration brings in millions of people from the Middle East. They have no proven desire that they wish to readily assimilate, integrate into a culture and a civilization that they feel is antithetical to that of their home. And that presents a paradox because they voted with their feet to join the West, but they want to bring their culture and values into the West, which, if they were successful, would mean that the West would look like their homelands, of which they have forsaken. Doesn’t make sense. But we see the same thing in the United States. We have an open southern border. We’re criticized by immigrants that come across. And yet, if we were to embrace the values and culture of Latin America and turn the United States into Latin America, then the immigrants would not wish to leave Latin America to find another Latin America. The Left cannot deal with that paradox. But we can on the conservative side. So, we’re saying open borders do not work. We’re saying that if you dismantle natural gas, energy, if you dismantle oil, if you dismantle nuclear power, and you choose to subsidize inefficient and unreliable solar and wind, then you’re going to be a pre-civilizational society. Germany was the juggernaut of Europe, and now it’s a pathetic weakling, economically. Why? Because its energy costs are four times what they used to be. And it’s not a competitive country. So, what I’m getting at is people throughout the West say we’ve sat still where we had open borders. We have let in millions of people that do not like us and do not share our values. We have opted for economic irrationalism that has, in suicidal fashion, harmed our economies and hurt our lifestyles. We have embraced critical legal theory, critical race theory, that suggested the criminal is a victim rather than a victimizer. And we see the effects. And the verdict is in, it doesn’t work. And we see that our governments, our bureaucracy, our culture, at large, doesn’t want to hear this message. And we know they’re influential in the media, in the corporate boardroom, in the university. But they don’t have one thing. They don’t represent 51% of the people. And crowds are now marching in Europe, in the United States. And the message is: What has worked in the past does not have to be perfect, as I said, it’s better than the alternative. And we’re gonna return to it. And we wish you would join us. But if you don’t wanna join us and you want to dismantle Western civilization, or you hate the United States, or you despise your particular European country, then you’re gonna be voted out of office, and you’re gonna have zero political power, as it should be. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Western Civilization Has Reached a Turning Point After Charlie Kirk’s Death appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The crowdfunding platform GoFundMe is reviewing fundraising campaigns to remove any fundraiser that celebrates political violence in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination. While most Americans seem to have reacted to Kirk’s death at Utah Valley University with shock and dismay, some on the Left celebrated it, including Bernadette “Bird” Bowen, a professor who earned a Ph.D. in media and communication in 2022. Bowen reacted to Kirk’s death with this message: “Ding ding the Nazi’s dead, the wicked Nazi. Which old Nazi? The wicked Nazi!” Ding ding the Nazi’s dead, the wicked Nazi. Which old Nazi? The wicked Nazi!https://t.co/0LldJh4Wyq— Bernadette "bird" Bowen, PhD??? (@bbirdbPhD) September 10, 2025 “Charlie Kirk was not your everyday person,” she wrote in another post. “Any false conflation of him with that rhetoric is seriously bulls—. He was a Nazi, with a net worth of $12 million. And now, he’s not. Love that for us.” Bowen created a GoFundMe campaign seeking funds for “rent, food, and monthly bills,” saying that Western Governors University fired her after she criticized the university’s president for expressing sympathy with Kirk. “Hi, general anti-fascist Internet community,” her GoFundMe message opens. “The neo-nazis just got what they wanted.” “Western Governors University VP Casey Clark just fired me for calling out President Scott D. Pulsipher’s Charlie Kirk sympathizing at the start of our All Hands meeting on 9.11.25,” she wrote. Clark does indeed serve as vice president of academic operations for the university’s business school, and Pulsifer is the president. “WGU does not discuss individual personnel matters,” a university spokesperson told The Daily Signal. Bowen’s GoFundMe page features an image with the text, “Tears for Neo-Nazis don’t belong in higher education.” “Thanks to billionaire greed, despite my PhD, research expertise, publications, content, and 4 books, I have nothing saved and lived in perpetual millennial debt poverty, even during this job,” the fired professor wrote. “If I don’t get help from community I will be homeless / starving / dead just like the neo-nazis want.” She described herself as “an autistic, non-binary neuroqueer leftist, COVID-19 realistic, ex-academic, author, and content creator.” Her GoFundMe campaign repeated condemnations of Kirk and his allies, whom she branded “fascist” and “Neo-Nazi.” As of Thursday afternoon, Bowen has raised $2,701 of her $26,000 goal, and 95 people have contributed since she launched it three days ago. Bowen did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment about concerns that her celebration of political violence may violate the platform’s terms of service. GoFundMe’s Response “Our hearts go out to the Kirk family and everyone impacted by this tragedy,” a GoFundMe spokesperson told The Daily Signal in a statement Thursday. “Our team is swiftly reviewing fundraisers related to this horrific shooting to ensure they are verified and that funds are safely delivered to the intended beneficiaries.” “We have zero tolerance for the celebration of political violence,” the company added. “Our Trust & Safety team reviews both the content on a fundraiser page and how the funds will be used when determining whether a fundraiser violates our terms of service.” Those terms “explicitly prohibit fundraisers for the legal defense of a violent crime, and any attempted fundraisers for the suspected shooter will be swiftly removed from the platform and fully refunded.” GoFundMe did not address Bowen’s fundraiser. The post ‘ZERO TOLERANCE’: GoFundMe Is ‘Swiftly Reviewing Fundraisers’ to Remove Any Celebration of Political Violence appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Um...'Colorful' TX County Judge Won't Be Seeking Reelection - Many Grateful Breaths Exhaled

Several characters on Thursday’s CNN This Morning show would have you believe there wasn’t easy way to define Antifa, a left-wing extremist group President Trump recently promised to designate as a terrorist organization. This contradicted to previous CNN coverage of Antifa, which formally recognized the group and provided no doubt as to who they were and their intentions. CNN host Audie Cornish set the stage for the table discussion by ascribing the militant left group an ambiguous connotation: “Antifa, though, I've just been hearing about for years, this kind of amorphous concept.” Cornish, who’s been working in journalism for over two decades, should know better. If she could be given the benefit of the doubt, her opener could be interpreted as voicing a question the silent audience might have been asking behind the camera. But that’s not what was going on. The left-wing news agency had a history of portraying Antifa in a positive light. Back in 2018, then-CNN host Don Lemon, while refraining from condoning violence, practically defended Antifa by giving them a “distinction” from neo-Nazis—that being fighting fascism, supposedly. In 2019, Chris Cuomo, when he was still on CNN, went to bat for both Antifa and Black Lives Matter, going so far as to say, “There are certainly aspects of them that are true to a cause, that is a good cause.” CNN even gave a platform an Antifa member in an attempt to humanize the group. Now, CNN allows their correspondents to play dumb, pretending as if Antifa is some unknown phenomenon. CNN legal analyst Ellie Honig explained how to define a domestic terrorist group: “So the technical definition of domestic terror organization is contained in the law books […] There's actually crimes—for material support to a foreign organization. But domestic, it's a symbolic statement […] So it's a little bit of theater, but I think it could carry very real consequences.” Honig simultaneously minimized the President’s move while maximizing the perceived threat to far-left activists. Mike Dubke, the only Republican at the table, actually tried to characterize Antifa as a concrete species by pointing to one of the simplest facts: DUBKE: Well, I think, first of all, they’ve got a logo, so they’ve got to be an organization. You put the flag up— CORNISH: Where’d that logo come from? DUBKE: I don’t know, but they’ve got to be an organization. Cornish laughed off Dubke’s conjecture, belittling the obvious as if it were childish speculation. Antifa’s culture of anonymity intentionally makes it difficult for anyone to identify who specifically is involved in their less-than-civil activities. The federal government was especially equipped to handle groups of squirmy individuals evading law and order. Antifa may not have a staff page, but they unify under a common banner—almost like organizing, one could say.     Former Biden official Meghan Hayes continued to stir the pot of uncertainty: HAYS: But also, how do you say who's an Antifa and who's not? So if I say that the President is a fascist, am I now an Antifa? Like, I don't see—how do you do that? So now you're going to have a lot of— [Crosstalk] HAYS: But I mean, how do you decide that? And then you’re going to have a bunch of people who’ve been charged and ruin them financially, because you’ve now charged them with things that they may or may not be a part of. It's sort of like white supremacists. How do you decide who is a white supremacist and who is not? The people who marched in Charlottesville, they didn't all get marched into court, and—that's, it’s just not how it works. It's a little amorphous of how you decide who is this and who is not. And it makes it very subjective to the President and the DOJ, who is very political, who does do a lot of things for theater. No one could deny Trump’s eccentricity or hyperbolic rhetoric. That’s just who he was. But if anything was certain, it’s that his second term had been one of bold, unyielding action. CNN knew Trump was prioritizing a tough-on-crime approach to law enforcement. The only way to counter that was to obfuscate his targets’ existence. CNN reporter Stephen Collinson echoed former FBI Director Christopher Wray, who: “said that Antifa was not an organization, it was an ideology. It was therefore very hard to crack down on Antifa.” The Director’s defiance sounded much more like a lack of motivation than an inability to combat violent agitators. At least now the President had both a much more loyal FBI Director and Attorney General, who were more than willing to pursue those responsible for criminal activity. The transcript is below. Click "expand" read: CNN This Morning September 18, 2025 6:42:40 a.m. Eastern (…) AUDIE CORNISH: The Group Chat is back. Ellie, starting with you again just for this legal definition. There are ways you can decide this organization is a domestic terror group. This is not prioritize their prosecution. Antifa, though, I've just been hearing about for years, this kind of amorphous concept. So how would this work? ELLIE HONIG: So the technical definition of domestic terror organization is contained in the law books. If you do a search, you will find a definition of what a domestic terrorism organization is. We can have a conversation about whether Antifa meets that or not. I'm sure we will in a moment. But legally, and this is strange, it gives the federal government no actual additional powers. And that's in contrast to a foreign terrorist organization. If you designate ISIS, or Al Qaeda— CORNISH: Or Venezuela. HONIG: Well, whatever it may be, whatever one may—that actually does give prosecutors a better ability to surveil them, to get financial information about them. There's actually crimes—for material support to a foreign organization. But domestic, it's a symbolic statement. Now, the question, I think is, what is this going to open the door to Trump? CORNISH: Yes. [Crosstalk] HONIG: You can always tell your DOJ, “I want you to prioritize this type of thing.” So it's a little bit of theater, but I think it could carry very real consequences. CORNISH: Why does that theater matter in this moment, guys? MIKE DUBKE: Well, I think, first of all, they’ve got a logo, so they’ve got to be an organization. You put the flag up— CORNISH: Where’d that logo come from? DUBKE: I don’t know, but they’ve got to be an organization. I think what this comes from is, this is now putting, this is the Trump administration starting to lay out what was discussed and promised after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. But we've got to go back to the Biden administration and their national strategy to combat domestic terrorism. They got a lot of pressure in 2021 when they set this up by the ACLU and others. And I think this is the Trump administration taking the next logical step after the Biden administration has designated that there is a domestic terrorism problem. Now, what I know about it is there's what I know about it is there's not a lot of legal standing domestically to go after these groups, but— MEGHAN HAYS: But also, how do you say who's an Antifa and who's not? So if I say that the President is a fascist, am I now an Antifa? Like, I don't see—how do you do that? So now you're going to have a lot of— [Crosstalk] HAYS: But I mean, how do you decide that? And then you’re going to have a bunch of people who’ve been charged and ruin them financially, because you’ve now charged them with things that they may or may not be a part of. It's sort of like white supremacists. How do you decide who is a white supremacist and who is not? The people who marched in Charlottesville, they didn't all get marched into court, and—that's, it’s just not how it works. It's a little amorphous of how you decide who is this and who is not. And it makes it very subjective to the President and the DOJ, who is very political, who does do a lot of things for theater. CORNISH: Is this related to the free speech issue or not? I don't want to jam those things want to jam those things together. STEPHEN COLLINSON: But that's the question I have. Where does the line cross between, you know, somebody who supposedly, according to the White House, conducting nefarious political activity that leads to violence and the First Amendment? Christopher Wray, the former FBI Director, said that Antifa was not an organization, it was an ideology. It was therefore very hard to crack down on Antifa. (…)

On Thursday, the “Big Three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC had full stories on their flagship morning news shows mourning the indefinite suspension of ABC late-night partisan tool Jimmy Kimmel, bemoaning an alleged conspiracy between the Trump administration and local TV conglomerates to censor a “Trump critic.” ABC’s Good Morning America was predictably the worst. Co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos screeched in the tease “response from leading Democrats” to the network “suspend[ing] late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel after a threat from the head of the FCC appointed by President Trump kept calling for a Kimmel suspension over comments about Charlie Kirk’s death.” Trump “appointed.” Consider how often or little the liberal media do this with judges and officials chosen by Democrat presidents. Stephanopoulos tossed to correspondent Elizabeth Schulze by whining “[t]he move has drawn a sharply polarized response.”   All three networks made no attempt to consider Kimmel’s comments were offensive. Schulze said Kimmel was off the hear “after a threat from the head of the Federal Communications Commission” and claimed FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr “called for Kimmel suspension.” Schulze falsely claimed Carr himself suspended Kimmel:   A California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) quote later, Stephanopoulos provided his two cents: “Yeah, and this threat from the FCC the latest in a series of moves against the independent media from President Trump and his appointees.” While ABC showed the worst instances of bias and disgust over the Kimmel suspension, CBS and NBC led with Kimmel, illustrating how much the left views this singular, multimillionaire host’s suspension as a national crisis and tragedy. Earth to the networks: Kimmel is still very much alive and able to go elsewhere, unlike Charlie Kirk. On NBC’s Today, co-host Savannah Guthrie teased news on the “major shake-up in Hollywood” and was followed by this from co-host Craig Melvin: Late night drama. Jimmy Kimmel live being suspended indefinitely following backlash over the host’s comments on Charlie Kirk, his killer, and conservatives...Republicans praising the move. Democrats blasting it as censorship. So, where does it all go from here? We’ll have the very latest from Hollywood to Washington. Later in setting up Los Angeles-based correspondent Liz Kreutz, Guthrie conceded the partisan nature of network comedy shows: This comes after comments he made on the show about the Charlie Kirk assassination. It marks another major shake-up in late night. Two months after CBS announced it is canceling The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Colbert, of course, another fierce critic of President Trump. The network called that move a financial decision. Kreutz said this decision was made by ABC “after pressure from the head of FCC and while conservatives including the President are praising the move” versus “Democrats and many free speech advocates are condemning it as censorship.” She phrased Kirk’s offending comments as “accusing Republicans of reaching new lows in response to the 22-year-old alleged killer who authorities say had a leftist ideology.” She too played the conspiracy game about the FCC and Nexstar (click “expand”): KREUTZ: Soon after Nextstar, one of the largest companies in the country and currently seeking FCC approval for a merger announced it would stop airing Kimmel on all of its ABC affiliated stations. Within hours, ABC suspended Kimmel’s show. Carr praising the move later in the evening. CARR [on FNC’s Hannity, 09/17/25]: I’m glad to see that America’s broadcasters are standing up to the interests of their community. KREUTZ: On Truth Social, President Trump congratulating ABC for finally having the courage to did what had to be done. Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the panel accusing the Trump administration of setting a dangerous precedent. FCC COMMISSIONER ANNA GOMEZ: We must be careful not to allow the government to punish critics simply because of content. Like Guthrie (and, as we’ll see, like CBS), Kreutz conceded Kimmel is a “Trump critic” like Colbert, adding “[o]ver the last week a growing number of people have been fired or suspended for their public comments about Charlie Kirk, something the Vice President encouraged.” But the most ridiculous part was the inclusion of this unhinged liberal partisan (who actually supports real censorship):   CBS Mornings also led with the Kimmel suspension. Co-host and Democrat donor Gayle King teased a story on “the fallout” and said Kimmel was “pull[ed]...after complaints over his response to the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.” “But let’s get to the news breaking overnight. By now you have heard from Hollywood that ABC has suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s long-running late-night show indefinitely after an angry response to comments he made about conservative activist Charlie Kirk. This morning, we are hearing reaction from the entertainment world and the President,” she added in tossing to correspondent Jonathan Vigliotti. Vigliotti asserted the suspension was “raising new questions over the ways the Trump administration is pressuring private companies” and, after playing only a small portion of the show in question, he shifted to the implication of a conspiracy with the sound of Carr “appear[ing] to threaten broadcasters on Wednesday while speaking on a conservative podcast.” He continued with the tick-tock, although he had CBS News legal analyst Jessica Levinson point out direct decisions made by private employers muddies any chances of a free speech violation (click “expand”): VIGLIOTTI: Hours later, Nextstar, the country’s largest local broadcasting group, announced it “would pre-empt Jimmy Kimmel Live! for the foreseeable future” on its stations, calling his monologue, “offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse.” And shortly after, ABC said it would pull its late-night host off the air indefinitely. CBS News legal contributor Jessica Levinson JESSICA LEVINSON: When a private employer takes action against a private employee for speech, that’s not a First Amendment issue. That, generally speaking, is an employment-based issue. VIGLIOTTI: Celebrities like Ben Stiller and Jean Smart were quick to defend Kimmel. Comedian Wanda Sykes, who was scheduled to appear as Kimmel’s guest Wednesday, accused the Trump administration of ending free speech. WANDA SYKES: Hey, for those of you who pray, now is the time to do it. Love you, Jimmy. VIGLIOTTI: Reacting to the news Wednesday night, President Trump called it “Great News for America.” Before sound from Gomez on CNN and concluding with a wink and nod about Nexstar seeking FCC approval for its Tegna merger, Vigliotti joined NBC in giving away the game about the partisan tilt of late-night shows: Kimmel has routinely taken aim at the President in his late-night monologues, and he’s subsequently been a target of Trump’s ire, including after CBS announced it was canceling its Late Show franchise with Stephen Colbert, citing financial concerns. To see the relevant transcripts from September 18, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

Meta AI went after Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk by relying on none other than Wikipedia, exposing the disturbing influence of the online encyclopedia on artificial intelligence. On Wednesday, the chatbot was quick to accuse Kirk of promoting conspiracy theories and other purportedly false claims when asked, "Who is Charlie Kirk?" Worse still, Meta AI identified Wikipedia as its sole source, justifying its choice by stating it offers a "neutral point of view and comprehensive coverage of current events." [The story continues on MRCFreeSpeechAmerica.org] Image above credited to Gage Skidmore.

The Senate unanimously voted to pass a resolution honoring Charlie Kirk following his horrific assassination.The resolution, which was spearheaded by Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, will make Kirk's birthday a national day of remembrance, commemorating the beloved conservative activist. Scott's resolution passed the Senate unanimously on Thursday, making October 14 a National Day of Remembrance for Charlie. 'This is just a flag, planted on a hill. What matters is where we carry it next.'"Charlie was taken from us in a disgusting act of political violence on September 10, 2025, but his legacy lives on," Scott said on the Senate floor. "Charlie will long be remembered for his love of God, his family, and this great nation, and the impact he had on each and every one of us.""We have the opportunity to carry on his memory by believing in the power of ideas, discussion, and the value of our nation," Scott added. "Let us honor Charlie by believing in the power of our ideas to win the day and leave this nation a better place," he continued.RELATED: 'Exactly what he wanted': Charlie Kirk's widow is taking over as CEO of Turning Point USA Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesThe resolution also commends Kirk as a "champion of free speech, dialogue, and faith," recognizing the countless contributions he made in just 31 years. Other lawmakers have made similar efforts to memorialize Kirk. Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah led a resolution to condemn Kirk's assassination and praise his "outstanding legacy." Like Scott's resolution, Lee's passed the Senate unanimously. "This is just a flag, planted on a hill," Lee said in a post on X. "What matters is where we carry it next."RELATED: FBI unveils damning new evidence against accused Charlie Kirk assassin Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesThe House is also expected to hold a vote Friday on a resolution condemning the political violence that resulted in Kirk's assassination. Democratic leaders have conveyed behind closed doors that they will support the resolution, but they are not pressuring the rest of their party to vote in favor of it. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!