Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of the accompanying video from professor Peter St. Onge. Mass deportations are coming. Which feels about right given we’re a democracy and nearly 60% of Americans want mass deportation of illegals. Who are, after all, breaking the law by trespassing on our republic. So, how fast and who goes first? After Joe Biden’s communist handlers let perhaps 20 million illegals into our country—many of them murderers and rapists because, sadly, some countries did not send their best—President-elect Donald Trump has promised the largest mass deportation in U.S. history. The current record-holder is Franklin D. Roosevelt, who deported 2 million aliens, overwhelmingly Mexican. I mentioned in a recent video how FDR’s deportations included citizen children of illegals, so that is perfectly legal—they will pretend it’s not. The active deportations will start with criminals and will essentially be arrests. But the real magic happens in the background, the self-deportations. I mentioned in a recent video how up to 90% of FDR’s deportations actually self-deported to avoid forced deportation. Today, we’d be looking at 15 million self-deportations if the message is clear. Wall Street Silver recently suggested some ways to get the self-deportations rolling. Including cutting all financial benefits, from food stamps to rent subsidies, from free apartments to Obamaphones. This would, of course, free up resources for, say, homeless combat veterans. Next, cancel the so-called temporary refugee status that hands out work permits like candy and is apparently killing the ducks in Springfield, Ohio. Then the big one: Crack down on employers who hire illegals. Which is already illegal, with up to six months in prison, but is not enforced. Next up is the border. To both stop the flow of new illegal immigrants and ensure that deportations aren’t a revolving door, Donald Trump plans to finish his wall, of course, and to restore his “remain in Mexico” policy that made illegals stay in Mexico while they’re processed—which can take years. After all, beggars don’t get free caviar, and a true refugee should be perfectly happy with Mexico, a country over a million Americans retire to. In case Mexico doesn’t play ball, Trump’s threatened a 25% tariff on everything Mexico exports to us if Mexico doesn’t get illegal immigration under control. So, Mexico may not pay for the wall, but it will be the wall. Beyond deportations, Trump wants more screenings for immigrants, so we continue to attract the best and brightest without getting swamped by criminals and welfare cases. Ideally, we’d replace our current bubble gum and baling wire immigration system with a points system like Japan uses, where you get points for education, income, career achievements, and age so you’re not a burden on our health care system. Prove enough points and you’re in. Fail and you’re out for good. Finally, what does mass deportation do to the economy? In short, millions of jobs open up for Americans, along with millions of houses. The Americans will get higher wages, lower rents, and, of course, we’re not spending hundreds of billions on welfare for illegals. Inflation and gross domestic product depend on magnitudes—how high are the wages, how low are the rents, how many people leave, and what were they contributing, if anything. So what’s next? Mass deportations will begin once Trump takes office Jan. 20, starting with criminal migrants. For the rest, simply enforcing existing laws will, going by history, do almost all the work. As for those who refuse to go, the American military has a million and a half men. They’d probably love to get a mission that actually protects the country. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Get Ready for the Largest Mass Deportation Since FDR appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On the latest episode of “The Tony Kinnett Cast,” we dive into the star-studded cast of nominations President-elect Donald Trump has announced so far for his second administration. They include Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.; Gov. Kristi Noem, R-S.D.; Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.; former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.; border czar-to-be Tom Homan; and more by the minute. Why pick a power-packed posse of prominent pals to staff the Cabinet of an administration? It all comes down to three things: experience, expectations, and expedience. These three characteristics are most likely to define the first 100 days of the second Trump administration. Former CIA officer Kevin Shipp joins us to discuss his new book, “Twilight of the Shadow Government: How Transparency Will Kill the Deep State.” What changed to make President Harry Truman regret founding the Central Intelligence Agency only two years later? Where does America’s intelligence apparatus need to be, and why can’t it live up to what Americans expect of it? Catch the live radio show and livestream weeknights at 7 p.m. ET on The Daily Signal’s YouTube, X, or Facebook—and subscribe to the podcast so you never miss an episode or exclusive interview. The post An Inside Look at Trump’s Dream Team appeared first on The Daily Signal.

San Francisco Ousted Its Lone Democratic Socialist City Supervisor

Whoopi Goldberg: 'I'm a Working Person Too'

On Saturday afternoon, CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield promoted a clip of Congressman Jim Clyburn (D-SC) from the day before when he tied the election of Donald Trump to racism and suggested that it was similar to the end of the Reconstruction era and the beginning of new Jim Crow era. Ultimately, he smeared America by saying his "real problem now is not Democrat versus Republican," but rather "this country and what we can expect from this country." After speaking with CNN political analyst Julian Zelizer about former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) recent criticism of President Joe Biden for not dropping out of the election earlier, Whitfield brought up Congressman Clyburn's comments: "And then there's veteran member of Congress Jim Clyburn. He was a lot more philosophical about what the election outcome means -- perhaps in, you know, using your terminology, he was thinking bigger picture. Listen to what he had to say."     Then played a clip of the South Carolina Democrat from when he appeared on CNN Friday afternoon with host Boris Sanchez. After a clip of him complaining about slurs being used against Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris and former Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, he then moved to implicate racism as he took aim at the Project 2025 plan by conservatives for a Trump administration agenda: I've studied the history of this country all of my life. I lived through Jim Crow. And I know that Project 2025 is Jim Crow 2.0. I am wondering whether or not we are coming out of this election the way the country came out of the 1876 presidential election which led to the end of Reconstruction and led to the beginning of Jim Crow. Is that where we are today? Whitfield then accepted the liberal narrative that there was widespread racism and sexism as she posed: "He's talking about, you know, what now seems to be an enlightenment among many about the racism and sexism that continues to exist if not flourish. So what does this election, in your view, the outcome, say to you about where our country is right now?" Zelizer went along with the premise in his response: Well, I think that argument will be widespread, meaning this election, unlike 2016, there was tremendous clarity about where the President-elect stood, what his coalition stood for, and these issues were front and center. You don't have to scratch beneath the surface to hear them, to see them, to read them on issues such as immigrants. There is a reactionary element to the new MAGA coalition, and that coalition affirmed itself and its role in American politics right now. So I think that's part of what is troubling many Democrats not simply who has power, but what this election means about the character of the United States. And some will be resigned and despondent, but I think you'll also see slowly others kind of resist allowing this to be the direction of what is America. In the original interview with Sanchez, Clyburn had gone on to claim that the U.S. Supreme Court was allowing racist congressional districts to be used. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN Newsroom with Fredricka Whitfield November 9, 2024 1:12 p.m. Eastern FREDRICKA WHITFIELD: And then there's veteran member of Congress Jim Clyburn. He was a lot more philosophical about what the election outcome means -- perhaps in, you know, using your terminology, he was thinking bigger picture. Listen to what he had to say. CONGRESSMAN JIM CLYBURN (D-SC) (from a November 8 CNN appearance): You heard the rhetoric during the campaign. I certainly heard it. And the day or two before the campaign, there were references to women -- one to the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi with the B word. Another time, I heard references to Kamala Harris with a C word. And these were done openly in wide open spaces with children in the audience. My real problem now is not Democrat versus Republican. It's about this country and what we can expect from this country. I've studied the history of this country all of my life. I lived through Jim Crow. And I know that Project 2025 is Jim Crow 2.0. I am wondering whether or not we are coming out of this election the way the country came out of the 1876 presidential election which led to the end of Reconstruction and led to the beginning of Jim Crow. Is that where we are today? WHITFIELD: He's talking about, you know, what now seems to be an enlightenment among many about the racism and sexism that continues to exist if not flourish. So what does this election, in your view, the outcome, say to you about where our country is right now? JULIAN ZELIZER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think that argument will be widespread, meaning this election, unlike 2016, there was tremendous clarity about where the President-elect stood, what his coalition stood for, and these issues were front and center. You don't have to scratch beneath the surface to hear them, to see them, to read them on issues such as immigrants. There is a reactionary element to the new MAGA coalition, and that coalition affirmed itself and its role in American politics right now. So I think that's part of what is troubling many Democrats not simply who has power, but what this election means about the character of the United States. And some will be resigned and despondent, but I think you'll also see slowly others kind of resist allowing this to be the direction of what is America. (...) CNN News Central November 8, 2024 3:19 p.m. Eastern BORIS SANCHEZ: So you consider, Congressman, that misogyny and perhaps racism had a lot to do with her loss despite that Hillary Clinton received -- she won the popular vote -- and Barack Obama obviously won not only the presidency but reelection as well? CONGRESSMAN JIM CLYBURN (D-SC): Absolutely. He was not subjected to the kind of misinformation and disinformation that we've got going on now. We all know that. The fact of the matter is, as well as Hillary did, she still did not win. And I think that Kamala still suffers from that. You heard the rhetoric during the campaign. I certainly heard it. And the day or two before the campaign, there were references to women -- one to the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi with the B word. Another time, I heard references to Kamala Harris with a C word. And these were done openly in wide open spaces with children in the audience. My real problem now is not Democrat versus Republican. It's about this country and what we can expect from this country. I've studied the history of this country all of my life. I lived through Jim Crow. And I know that Project 2025 is Jim Crow 2.0. I am wondering whether or not we are coming out of this election the way the country came out of the 1876 presidential election which led to the end of Reconstruction and led to the beginning of Jim Crow. Is that where we are today? I used to tell my students when I used to teach this stuff: Anything that's happened before can happen again. And I can see us with these kinds of Supreme Court decisions that are now saying it's all right to run congressional races though the facts are they (the districts) are racially biased, but you can run in those districts anyway. That's what the Supreme Court just did. And so we are facing a court that could be a throwback to Plessy versus Ferguson rather than Brown v Board of Education. SANCHEZ: Congressman James Clyburn, we have to leave the conversation there, but we very much appreciate the time and perspective. Thanks for joining us. CONGRESSMAN CLYBURN: Thank you very much for having me.

CBS’s abortion-obsessed political correspondent Caitlin Huey-Burns joined Tuesday’s CBS Mornings Plus to answer for the liberal media’s despondent reactions to Vice President Kamala Harris’s blowout loss coming despite abortion ballot amendments/initiatives/referendums passing in seven of ten states where the issue went before voters (and four went red for President-Elect Trump). As she would admit, voters were able to separate out their political views to vote in favor of supporting abortion while not necessarily voting for Democrats, the primary political party behind the ending of unborn lives.     Co-host Adriana Diaz began by briefly calling out liberal pundits: “[R]emember when Democratic pundits thought that the fight over abortion rights could push Vice President Kamala Harris to victory? Well, they’re now thinking again. Because voters who wanted expanded abortion access did not necessarily think they had to vote for Harris.” Ooof. After sharing some of the vote totals between Trump and abortion measures, Huey-Burns was brought in by co-host Tony Dokoupil as someone who’s “reported on this issue for many years and followed President-elect Donald Trump on the campaign trail and has spoken to him about this very topic.” Huey-Burns started by asking the question herself about how the two didn’t translate. That took awhile as she initially argued “Republicans did recognize that they did have to have better answers to address the fallout” from the end of Roe v. Wade, including Vice President-Elect JD Vance arguing the GOP had “to do a better job talking to women and messaging on this issue and doing more for women who have children.” But upon being prompted by Diaz to explain how Democrats didn’t also receive the greenlight from voters, she acknowledged previous abortion measures weren’t in presidential election years and thus voters had a different calculus. Nonetheless, she tried to put a positive spin on the election for the left: So, if you think about it, with the exception of Georgia, all of the battleground states either had less restrictive measures, measures on the books already protecting access, or a ballot measure, or a Democratic governor who they thought wouldn’t support abortion restrictions, or, you know, perhaps some combination of all of them and when you look at some of these key battleground states, like Arizona and Nevada, for example, Donald Trump won them, but those abortion access measures, preserving access in the state constitution, also passed. So, if you think about it, if you cared about abortion access, but you also were concerned about the economy, the border, other kind of more immediate concerns for your everyday life[.] She concluded with the reality that, believe it or not, “voters can think about a lot of different things at once heading into an election” and can “exercise their, you know, or show their opinions on a variety of different issues.” Reacting to all that, Diaz put a cap on the discussion by conceding “it was the economy that really drove people” and that James Carville’s line about an election being on “the economy, stupid” was again proven to be true. To see the relevant CBS transcript from November 12, click here.

A comedienne on "Saturday Night Live" revealed that tech billionaire Elon Musk was the host who made her cry because he was really mean about her sketch proposal. Chloe Fineman posted a video in which she recounted the story and said she decided to reveal the information after Musk complained about the impression made of him on the show. Prior to her admission, another cast member had said an unnamed host had made several cast members cry. 'I was like damn my SNL appearance is going to be so f***ing unfunny that it will make a crackhead sober!!'Fineman posted the video on social media and then deleted it hours later. “Guess what? You made I, Chloe Fineman, burst into tears because I stayed up late writing a sketch. I was so excited. I came in, I asked if you had any questions, and you stared at me like you were firing me from Tesla and were like, ‘It’s not funny,'" she said. "I waited for you to be like, 'Ha ha, JK.' No. Then you started pawing through my script, like, flipping each page being like, 'I didn't laugh. I didn't laugh once, not one time,'" she added. She went on to say the sketch made the show, and it did well despite Musk's misgivings. "I actually had a really good time, and I thought you were really funny in it, but, you know, have a little manners here, sir!" Fineman continued. Although she deleted the video, it was copied and circulated on social media. Musk's appearance on "SNL" was praised by some, but some of the cast members refused to appear with him based on vague criticisms of his support for right-wing causes. He has since become far more open about his politics and supported President-elect Donald Trump in the election. The billionaire responded in a message on X, the platform he owns. "Frankly, it was only on the Thursday before the Saturday that ANY of the sketches generated laughs. I was worried," he explained. "I was like damn my SNL appearance is going to be so f***ing unfunny that it will make a crackhead sober!! But then it worked out in the end." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Pat Gray was initially concerned when over the weekend an “unnamed source” suggested that Trump was already beginning to distance himself from RFK Jr., who was said to be poised to “make America healthy again.” However, Donald Trump Jr.'s recent appearance on “The Megyn Kelly Show” suggests otherwise. “Would RFK Jr. have an actual Cabinet position now that the Republicans are going to control the Senate, as opposed to being a non-confirmed czar-type guy?” Kelly asked. “We definitely do want to honor the promise that we made, make sure that he's involved in whatever capacity sort of he wants,” Don. Jr. stated, adding that he believes Kennedy would “do an incredible job on the stuff as it relates to health.” “I love what RFK can do to health. I have five young kids; I want to make sure I'm not poisoning them when they have a meal,” he told Kelly, who nodded in agreement. “I'd love to let him go wild on some of these things, or at least shed some light so the American public understands exactly why we are where we are, exactly why we're so fat, exactly why we're so unhealthy, and why it seems like so many people are trying to keep us that way rather than let us be healthy,” he explained. He also confirmed the administration’s plans to include Elon Musk, whom he called “the Einstein of our era,” in matters related to the Department of Government Efficiency. “I'm going to make sure that the people that surround my father are both loyal to him and competent. … I think this time around we actually know who those people are; we're going to bring in a lot of people from outside,” Trump Jr. told Kelly. “So it sounds like both Elon and Robert Kennedy will definitely be a part of this administration,” says Keith Malinak. “What we hoped would happen is in fact happening,” says Pat. To hear more of the conversation, watch the clip above. Want more from Pat Gray?To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Donald Trump is wasting no time in laying out an ambitious agenda for his next term. We are seeing a flurry of policy announcements, cabinet appointments, and strategic moves that show he’s not just making campaign promises — he’s setting the stage for significant change. For the first time in decades, we may have a president-elect who is dead serious about taking on the entrenched powers of Washington, D.C., priming the next four years to be one of the most transformative periods in modern American history.This is about restoring the Constitution, reversing the damage done by years of progressive policies, and returning America to its founding principles.One of Trump’s most radical promises since winning the election is to shut down the Department of Education. For years, we’ve watched our schools become hijacked by progressive ideologues pushing leftist agendas while driving up tuition costs to astronomical levels. Trump’s promise to overhaul the education system isn’t just about budget cuts; it’s about returning the power to parents and local communities to educate their children — where it belongs.What I find most striking about Trump's education policy is his pledge to go after the accreditation systems that have let left-wing universities run unchecked for decades. He’s not just targeting bloated administrative costs or ideological indoctrination — he’s going for the root.By firing radical accreditors and setting new standards for higher education, Trump is aiming to reclaim our colleges from the grip of Marxist ideologues, who are churning out leftist political activists rather than free-thinking, educated young adults. This change will have ripple effects generationally.Trump made it clear that these aren’t just campaign promises. These policies are what he plans to implement right out of the gate. He’s preparing America and the swamp for a fundamental reset: to reduce government overreach and let states, local school boards, and most importantly, parents, have the most say over how children should be educated. Think back to the early days of Barack Obama’s presidency, when he passed the massive stimulus plan that was over 2,000 pages long. At the time, it was clear to me that the stimulus package was more about a fundamental transformation of America than about economic recovery. Obama’s team members knew exactly what they wanted to do, and they did it without telling us.What we’re seeing now with Trump is the same level of planning — except in the opposite direction. This is about restoring the Constitution, reversing the damage done by years of progressive policies, and returning America to its founding principles.Such strong action against the deep state has a lot of conservatives wondering: “Is this really going to happen?” Reagan talked about shutting down the Department of Education, but it never came to fruition. I get the skepticism. But this time, it feels different. This isn’t the Trump of 2016, who made big promises but had to navigate a swamp full of hostile forces in Washington. This is Trump 2.0 — perhaps even Trump 3.0. He’s learned from his first term, has appointed the right people to his cabinet, and moreover, he understands the urgency of his agenda. He has made a clear plan for his first 100 days to get things done, and unlike in 2016, he has a Republican-controlled Congress to help push his policies over the finish line.Trump is ushering forth a return to the Constitution, a reassertion of state rights, and a reaffirmation of what it means to be American. He has made it clear that he’s serious about this, and now he has the cabinet and Congress to make it happen. Let’s hold him to it and watch closely as the first 100 days unfold.Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep and more delivered to your inbox.

Former Vice President Mike Pence said that he hoped President-elect Donald Trump does not pardon the Jan. 6 rioters who assaulted police at the U.S. Capitol after the 2020 election. 'By God's grace, we did our duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.' Pence made the comments while a guest speaker at the Dispatch’s Summit 2024 on Tuesday. "I don't think the president should pardon anyone who assaulted a police officer at the United States Capitol on January 6," said Pence, according to social media reports from The Dispatch X account. "Karen and I are literally praying that President-Elect Trump and Vice President-Elect Vance will stand on the commitments that they will make when they raise their right hands on that day," he added. "And with God's grace and the support of the American people, I believe they will."Pence also praised Trump over reports about appointments to his administration. "They reflect a caliber of competence and experience, particularly in the realm of national security, that gives me great confidence that that will continue to stay the course and embrace our role as leader of the free world," he said.In the 46 months since the rioting at the Capitol, the Justice Department says 1,561 people have been criminally charged in federal court, and about 590 were charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers. 18 were charged with seditious conspiracy, 88 were charged with destruction of government property, and 67 were charged with theft of government property. Trump has said that he would free the "hostages being wrongfully imprisoned" but later clarified that to mean only the "innocent" ones and admitted that others got "out of control." When asked about his actions on that day, Pence was very clear in his response. "At the end of the day, I'll always believe that, by God's grace, we did our duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America," said Pence. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!