All Episodes
Previous Next
July 15, 2025 - The Ben Shapiro Show
01:03:41
Democrats ABANDON Barack Obama?!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Alrighty, folks, a ton coming up on today's show.
We're going to pay tribute to Reverend John MacArthur, who passed away yesterday.
Plus, Barack Obama is lecturing the left about why they are losing.
And in New York City, Zarin Mamdani continues to maintain a lead.
We'll get to all of that.
Plus, the new CPI report, President Trump's shift on Ukraine.
There's just tons happening in the news.
First, everyone is still talking about our latest addition to the Daily Wire, Isabel Brown.
Her brand new show premieres this fall exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
But don't worry.
There's plenty more on the way as we celebrate a decade of the Daily Wire.
Yes, we are celebrating our victories because who doesn't love winning?
But we're also fighting harder than ever.
The left wants to silence your voice.
We make it louder.
They want open borders.
We demand law and order.
They want drag shows for kids.
We make documentaries that expose the truth.
They cancel.
We create.
This is the time to be part of a community that fights back and wins.
Go to dailywireplus.com and join the fight today.
I want to start today by offering condolences to the family and all of the followers of John MacArthur, the Southern California preacher.
And someone who I'd venture to say was a friend of mine.
John MacArthur was on the show twice at length, an amazing human being.
Of course, he had millions and millions of followers in the Christian community.
Christianity Today has a lengthy obituary for John MacArthur, who passed away yesterday afternoon.
They say expository preacher John MacArthur, who taught scripture to millions through tape sermons, radio broadcasts, Bible commentaries, and a best-selling study Bible, died Monday at the age of 86.
MacArthur said the most important mark of his ministry was that he explained the Bible with the Bible, not cluttering up sermons with personal stories, commentary on current events, or appeals to emotion, but teaching timeless truth.
The longtime pastor of Grace Community Church said a good sermon should still be good 50 years after it is preached.
He said, it isn't time stamped by any kind of cultural events or personal events.
It's not about me, and it transcends not only time, but it transcends culture.
He published the MacArthur Study Bible in 1997.
It has 20,000 notes on specific verses, as well as an index of important doctrines, introductions to each book of the Bible, and suggested Bible reading plans.
It sold 2 million copies over the course of a couple of decades.
He also has a New Testament commentary, which sold more than 1 million copies as well.
MacArthur, of all the people that I know in this sphere, I know quite a few, was absolutely staunch in his defense of the Bible.
He is somebody who certainly never shied away from the messages of the New Testament and somebody who made himself controversial because of that, which I think is quite a good thing.
In the first interview that I did with him, a lengthy interview, he spent fully 30 minutes of the interview talking to me about why I ought to convert to Christianity.
And as a Jew, I will say that not only do I not find that insulting, I find that absolutely useful.
Why?
Because he is saying the thing that he believed.
And I think that that is a good thing.
And the reason I considered him a friend is because he's somebody who cared about my eternal soul.
We could have disagreements on what would happen with regard to heaven or hell or whether the New Testament was truth or not truth, depending on whether you're a Christian or a Jew.
But I was never upset by the fact that he believed that I ought to convert to Christianity, because of course many Christians believe that I ought to convert to Christianity.
It's not an insult.
That's because somebody cares for my spiritual welfare and we disagree about how best to attain that spiritual welfare.
But it's because he was able to say hard truths as he saw them to people like me that he was also able to say hard truths to everybody about biblical values.
And that meant he was never shy about biblical values, which is absolutely useful in a time when moral relativism runs rampant.
Last year, he was on the show, and here is what John MacArthur had to say about the Bible.
I would just say this in a general sense.
Read the Bible.
Just read the Bible.
It has the ring of truth.
It defends itself.
It's like a lion.
You don't defend it.
You don't defend a lion.
You open the cage and let it out.
It'll be okay.
And the scripture is like that.
It's like that even morally.
There's something in the heart of people that resonates with biblical morality.
Obviously, their sinfulness fights it, but the law of God is written in every human heart.
That's part of being created in the image of God.
And you can fight that law.
You can resist that law.
You can violate that law.
But that law is there.
That is part of being created in God's image.
And I think if your heart is open to the truth, you go to the word of God, and I've seen this now for all these years I've been in ministry.
The ring of biblical truth is so powerful to a person who honestly reads the scripture.
And again, I think that message is deeply necessary in a time when so many have fallen into moral relativism, have fallen down a bunch of rabbit holes looking to fill the God-shaped hole in their heart.
And Megan Basham, who writes for us here at Daily Wire, she had a wonderful statement about the passing of John MacArthur, in which she spelled out exactly why it was that John MacArthur was such a special person to so many people.
She said that John MacArthur has consistently refused to join the latest relevance chasing fads.
It is this very refusal that has given his ministry enduring relevance for new generations.
And again, I think that is true.
I think that his work is going to be read for generations.
And the nice thing about the sort of Jewish view of the afterlife is that in Judaism, if you are not Jewish and you fulfill seven basic rules, the Noahide laws, which are things like no blasphemy, no adultery, no murder, and things like this, then you do indeed have a spot in heaven.
So it doesn't conflict with my faith to say that John MacArthur is with God right now, and that is something that he always longed for.
Again, his uncompromising fealty to biblical values as he saw them meant that he was also able to walk into political phrase without fear.
Here he was, this is way back when, just show lacking a young Gavin Newsom over same-sex marriage on CNN, when Gavin Newsom was trying to play at being a pastor, essentially.
I'm a practicing Catholic.
I got married in the church two-plus years.
I don't see what we're doing in terms of advancing the bond of love and monogamy and extending that to families, families of same-sex, in any way, shape, or form, takes away anything from the church Or the sanctity of the union that my wife and I have.
I would just like to ask the mayor as a practicing Catholic, do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
Look, Pastor, I'm not going to get in a theological debate with you that.
No, that's not a theological debate.
That's just a straight question.
Do you believe the Bible is the authoritative Word of God?
Yeah, with respect, I guess I do.
Now the response.
Well, then the Bible says when God created man, he said, one man, one woman cleave together for life.
That's a family.
I mean, it was that.
It was that sort of clarity.
You can see Gavin Newsom smirking and trying to walk this back.
There are a bunch of problems with Gavin Newsom is doing right there.
First of all, it is funny when he says, I'm a practicing Catholic and I've been married for two years to lead off that particular clip.
He was at that point married to Kimberly Guilfoyle, who he would then cheat on.
So, yeah, I mean, a few things, Gavin Newsom.
We'll get to more of Gavin Newsom a little bit later on in the program.
But again, I think that speaks to the fact that when you have a moral grounding in biblical values, the way John MacArthur did, it gave you the courage to walk in like a lion, which is something that John MacArthur did his entire life.
All righty, coming up, President Trump, very upset with Democrats, but does he have anything valuable to say?
First, if you are with one of the big wireless providers, you are overpaying for wireless, period.
You're paying for thousands of retail stores you never go into.
You're paying for unnecessary products you never use.
And you're paying a massive premium for what you think is superior 5G service.
Guess what?
PeerTalk uses the same 5G network on the same 5G towers.
The only difference, they don't charge you for any of the garbage.
Instead, PureTalk gives you unlimited talk, text, and plenty of data for just 25 bucks a month.
Folks, that's less than half the price of the big guys during a time when saving a buck really matters.
I'm a PureTalk customer.
I made the Switch.
What's your excuse?
You can even keep your phone and your number.
We've been using PureTalk here for quite a while.
The coverage is excellent and the price is great.
So why wouldn't you do the same?
Head on over to peertalk.com slash Shapiro.
You'll save an additional 50% off your very first month of coverage.
You can literally be switched over to Pure Talk in less than 10 minutes.
That's PureTalk.com slash Shapiro to switch to PureTalk, wireless by Americans for Americans.
Go check them out right now.
Again, that's PureTalk.com slash Shapiro to switch on over to Pure Talk Get Started with my friends over there, puretalk.com slash Shapiro.
Also, I always assumed that restless sleep was inevitable, right?
No, I toss, I turn, I get heated up at night, my back would hurt.
I figured that's what sleep was.
And then I tried Helix Sleep, a mattress made just for me.
And suddenly my sleep quality was just that much better.
It's truly been transformative.
Now, I easily fall asleep in minutes, even when, you know, there are a lot of worries that would normally keep me awake.
What makes Helix different is they don't just sell you a random mattress.
They actually match you with the perfect one for your body and sleep style.
Whether you're a side sleeper, back sleeper, somewhere in between, they've got you covered.
They make it so simple to get your best night's sleep every night.
All you have to do is take their sleep quiz and get matched with a custom mattress based on your body type and sleep preferences.
And trust me, when you find the right match, you'll wonder how you ever slept on anything else.
I've been using Helix Sleep for years.
In fact, Helix Sleep is so good that I got it for relatives.
I've gotten it for friends.
It's great.
Go check them out right now.
Right now, Helix is offering an incredible sale.
Visit helixleep.com slash Ben, get 27% off-site-wide.
That's helixleep.com slash Ben for 27% off site-wide.
Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know that we sent you again.
Just visit helixleep.com slash men for this exclusive offer.
All righty.
Meanwhile, in other news, President Obama is disappointed again, very disappointed in you, the Democrats.
He's upset.
And the reason that Barack Obama is upset with the Democrats is he said that you're whining and you're navel-gazing and you're sitting around doing nothing.
And the thing about Barack Obama is that he's always apart from the movement he supposedly leads.
Barack Obama is always sort of a spectator to his own party, to his own country, right?
He's somebody who gets to sit there on high and cast his judgment at the Democratic Party.
Now, you'll remember it was Barack Obama who originally told Joe Biden that he might pick Kamala Harris for VP.
And then it was Barack Obama who was trying to shovel Joe Biden through the primaries and literally guiding him physically on stage.
And then it was Barack Obama who intervened to get rid of Joe Biden and put Kamala Harris in his place.
So every move that Barack Obama has made, essentially since his second reelect, since his reelect in 2012, has been the wrong move.
That's just been the reality of the situation.
But he still feels like he can sit there and lecture everybody else, particularly in the Democratic Party, about what they are doing wrong.
So apparently, the 44th president spoke Friday evening at a fundraising event hosted by New Jersey governor Phil Murphy and his wife, Tammy Murphy, at their Red Bank, New Jersey home, according to a report from CNN's Arlette Sains.
The fundraiser was described as an intimate dinner.
It raised $2.5 million.
And apparently he said that it's time for Democrats to stand up for the things that you think are right.
Well, that is some shocking advice from Barack Obama.
I mean, really, with that sort of specificity, how can they lose?
He said, I think it's going to require a little bit less navel gazing and a little less whining and being in fetal positions.
And it's going to require Democrats to just toughen up.
You know, don't tell me you're a Democrat, but you're kind of disappointed right now, so you're not doing anything.
No, now is exactly the time that you get in there and do something.
Wow, listen to those inspiring words from Barack Obama.
Now's not the time to do nothing.
Now's the time to do something.
With this sort of guidance, how can the Democratic Party go wrong?
He says, don't say that you care deeply about free speech and then you're quiet.
No, you stand up for free speech when it's hard.
When somebody says something that you don't like, but you still say, you know what, that person has the right to speak.
What's needed now is courage.
I mean, wow, that just amazing, amazing, specific paths forward for Barack Obama.
How this guy was ever considered a sort of genius light in the Democratic Party is beyond me.
Terrific politician, great at what he did, also utterly empty, just a completely empty vessel for radical ideologies.
He said, stop looking for the quick fix.
Stop looking for the Messiah, meaning Barack Obama.
You have great candidates running races right now.
Support those candidates.
Make sure that the DNC has what it needs to compete in what will be a more data-driven, more social media-driven cycle, which will cost some money and expertise and time.
He said, the most important thing you can do right now is help the team, our candidate, to win.
We've got to start building up our coffers at the DNC.
And then he said, there's been, I gather, some argument between the left of the party and people who are promoting the quote unquote abundance agenda.
Listen, those things are not contradictory.
You want to deliver for people and make their lives better.
You got to figure out how to do it.
I don't care how much you love working people.
They can't afford a house because all the rules in your state make it prohibitive to build, and zoning prevents multifamily structures because of NIMBY, meaning not in my backyard.
I don't want to know your ideology because you can't build anything.
It does not matter.
So, this is the part that's fascinating.
So, in the end, Barack Obama, while he was a radical leftist for his time, there is never a left that is left enough for the Democratic Party.
And so, if you talk about Barack Obama with young people today, they barely remember him.
I mean, again, I'm now part of the middle age.
I'm 41 years old.
So I remember all the way back to the beginnings of the Bush administration, really, in my political life.
But most people who are young were not even born until George W. Bush was on his way out of office.
Most people who are voting for their first or second time in the next election cycle are people who grew up with Barack Obama as kind of the grand old man.
But think about how you think of the first president that you remember of your lifetime.
I remember Bill Clinton because I was approximately 16 when Bill Clinton left office, but I don't remember Bill Clinton like super duper well because I was 16 when he left office.
So think about you're a young person and Barack Obama left office when you were really young.
Like the first real president that you might remember, actually, might be Donald Trump because Donald Trump has been on the political scene for the last decade or so.
And the last Democrats you remember are all old people, right?
It was Hillary Clinton running and she was old already.
And it was Joe Biden who was dead.
And so when you think back to Barack Obama, Barack Obama has been out of politics at a very top level since 2015, 2016, realistically speaking.
And so what you're talking about here is a full decade of no Barack Obama.
So when he says maybe you should embrace the abundance agenda, you know how people think of Barack Obama now and the Democratic Party?
They think of him as a sort of technocratic figure, right?
Somebody who was there for the cult of expertise.
Well, we are now living in what Alana Newhouse at Tableau has called a brokenist era, meaning that everybody on both sides thinks all the institutions are broken.
On the left, they think the institutions are fundamentally broken and need to be torn down.
And so you need to move toward the radical left.
On the right, Donald Trump was sort of a representative of the brokenists, believing that the institutions of the country were already fundamentally broken.
He's trying to break down some of them more, and he's trying to recapitulate the strength of others.
But we live in a society that basically has no trust in the institutions.
Barack Obama was anti-institutionalist in some ways, but overall, Barack Obama was a believer that the institutions could be wielded for power by him.
That was sort of the chief mechanism of his technocratic rule.
And so when people of the Barack Obama era speak to young Democrats, I don't think there's a connect there.
Rahm Emanuel, who is his chief of staff, he's lecturing Democrats on not being popular enough because he wants to run for president.
Do you think Rahm Emanuel has a shot at the presidency?
Just to give you a sense of how bad we are, Democratic Party is less popular than Elon Musk right now.
That should be like a wake-up call, how bad.
And the Republican parties stab you in the back.
The Democratic Party, we disappoint you.
So he says the Democratic Party disappoints people.
But here's the problem.
If you're a Democrat and you're disappointed with the Democratic Party, that is the Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and Barack Obama and the old guard.
So the Democratic Party is abandoning the abundance agenda of people like Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and they're moving instead toward the radicals because that's where the energy in the party is.
The Mamdonification of the Democratic Party continues apace.
So in that New York City mayoral race, Andrew Cuomo has now announced that he's going to run as an independent in New York City.
He, of course, ran in a primary against Momdani.
He lost by 10 points in that primary.
The polls right now show that Momdani is leading the field, but not by leaps and bounds.
He's got about 35 to 40% of the vote in New York City.
And then the other 60% is split 20 different ways.
According to the latest poll from Data for Progress, Momdani is polling at 40%.
Former Governor Andrew Cuomo is polling at 24%.
Mayor Eric Adams, who's running as an independent, is polling at 15%.
And Curtis Sleewa is polling at 14%, which means that if you add up Cuomo, Adams, and Sliwa, which makes sense because there are not a lot of Adams voters who are going to bleed over to Momdani.
They're mostly going to bleed over to Cuomo if Cuomo were to stay in.
And if Sliwa were to drop out, that would all bleed over to Cuomo as well.
Then what you're really talking about at that point is 53% to 40% against Mom Dani.
This is why, you know, Andrew Cuomo jumping in.
I know a lot of people are ribbing on Andrew Cuomo today for jumping in after he got shellacked by Mom Dani in the primary.
But I got to say, I don't blame Andrew Cuomo for jumping in.
I think that Andrew Cuomo is a terrible candidate.
I think that many of the constituents he needed to win the mayoralty are not living right now because of his COVID old age home policies.
But given the demographics of the city of New York and the fact there are still Republicans and Independents in the city of New York, I think there's a good shot that Andrew Cuomo ends up as the mayor of New York if people drop out.
Eric Adams needs to drop out.
Chris Lewin needs to drop out.
There needs to be a sort of coming together around a candidate as terrible as Andrew Cuomo in order to stop the worst alternative of having a socialist with jihadist sympathies as the mayor of New York.
Here's Andrew Cuomo announcing his independent run in New York City.
Hello, I'm Andrew Cuomo.
And unless you've been living under a rock, you probably know that the Democratic primary did not go the way I had hoped.
To the 440,000 New Yorkers who voted for me, a sincere thank you.
Thank you for believing in me, in my agenda, and in my experience.
And I am truly sorry that I let you down.
But as my grandfather used to say, when you get knocked down, learn the lesson and pick yourself back up and get in the game.
And that is what I'm going to do.
The fight to save our city isn't over.
Only 13% of New Yorkers voted in the June primary.
The general election is in November, and I am in it to win it.
So, again, I think that he's an awful candidate, but he may be the best alternative at this point because the other candidate is an open socialist.
And the Democratic Party is rallying around the open socialist.
You know, the guy who says that we ought to nationalize grocery stores and the guy who refuses, once again, to condemn globalize the intifada, which is a call for international violence on behalf of jihadist causes.
I mean, that's what globalizing the intifada is.
Here's Mom Donnie just a couple of days ago dodging on globalizing the intifada.
Is there something that you regret about how you answered that question in the Bulwark podcast that kind of maybe left open this idea that this was a slogan, that not only that it wasn't so much that you defended it, but that you yourself would use it?
I can't speak to the media coverage of it.
I can tell you that I'm looking forward to that meeting with Congressman Jeffries.
And in the conversations that I've had with him, they have come back to the very urgent issue of affordability.
So just again, dodging and dodging and dodging and going back to affordability, but understand, there's so many people who are misreading Momdani's signal here.
He is not avoiding the question because he doesn't want to answer whether globalized the intifada is bad.
He's avoiding the question because he understands the signal is that globalized the intifada is good.
And that is what the Democratic Party base wants from him right now in places like New York.
It's sad and pathetic, but that is what it is.
He's also blaming President Trump for a decline in tourism in New York City, which is pretty wild considering that the city has been governed by horrifically bad Democrats for a decade or so.
We know that his policies, they are not just disappearing our neighbors, detaining our friends.
They are also turning the world away from our city.
The rapid decline of tourists coming to this city is an issue not simply for us living up to our word as a city that welcomes the world, but it's one that has very real economic impacts for artists that are with me here today and those beyond.
So again, it's all about the Trump administration killing tourism.
It's not about New York City being poorly run.
Already coming up, the future of the Democratic Party is a battle between the Zorin Mamdani Democrats and the Gavin Newsom Democrats.
I know that's an actual thing.
First, feeling overwhelmed by back taxes, you're not alone.
Maybe you missed that April deadline or your financial records are all over the place.
Whatever the situation, don't put it off any longer.
The IRS isn't getting any friendlier and those penalties, they pile up fast.
We're talking 5% every month you don't file, maxing out at 25%.
That adds up quickly.
Here's the thing.
You don't have to handle all of this alone.
Tax Network USA specializes in precisely these situations.
They've worked with thousands of Americans, employees, small business owners, people who haven't filed in years.
Messy books.
They've literally seen it all.
They know how to sort it out.
What sets them apart is their direct access to IRS programs that most people don't even know exist.
Plus, they have expert negotiators who actually know how to get results.
They'll start with a free consultation to assess your situation.
If you qualify, they may be able to reduce or even eliminate what you owe.
More importantly, they can protect you from the really scary stuff like wage garnishments, bank levies.
The bottom line, don't wait for that next IRS letter to show up in your mailbox.
The sooner you act, the more options you will have.
Call 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Shapiro to talk to a real expert at Tax Network USA.
Take the pressure off.
Let Tax Network USA handle your tax issues.
Also, in business, they say you can have better, cheaper, or faster, but you only get to pick two of those things.
Well, what if you could have all three at the same time?
That's exactly what Cohere, Thompson Reuters, and Specialized Bikes have since they upgraded to the next generation of the Cloud Oracle cloud infrastructure.
OCI is the blazing fast platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI needs, where you can run any workload in a high availability, consistently high performance environment and spend less than you would with other clouds.
How's it faster?
OCI's block storage gives you more operations per second.
Cheaper?
OCI costs up to 50% less for compute, 70% less for storage, and 80% less for networking.
Better?
And test after test, OCI customers report lower latency and higher bandwidth versus other clouds.
This is the cloud built for AI and all your biggest workloads.
Right now, with zero commitment, try OCI for free.
Head on over to oracle.com slash Shapiro.
That's oracle.com slash Shapiro.
Again, if you need better cloud, and I'm certain you do, go check out Oracle right now.
Zero commitment.
Try OCI for free.
Head on over to oracle.com slash Shapiro.
Again, that's oracle.com slash Shapiro.
Get faster, get better, get more efficient.
So what are the Democrats doing with Zoran Mamzani?
What are they doing?
Well, they're meeting with him.
So Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority Leader, he says that despite the fact that Eric Adams was a Democrat, now an independent, Andrew Cuomo was a Democrat, now an independent, both of them running, he's only going to meet with Mamzani.
I'm scheduled to meet with the Democratic nominee at the end of the week back home in Brooklyn.
Haven't had a conversation with Eric Adams or Andrew Cuomo since the primary and have no current plans to do so at this moment.
Well, there's a shock.
There's a shock.
Will he have any words for Zoran Mamdani and the fact that he is essentially an open communist?
Of course, he will not, because this is the modern Democratic Party.
It is a bunch of old garters who are making room for the actual radicals in their midst.
And this is going to be the new formula for the Democratic Party, at least until they get shellacked at some point, which you would imagine is something that is going to happen.
There is a Zara Mamdani type who's now running for the mayor of Minneapolis.
His name is Omar Fateh.
Here he is announcing his run for Minneapolis mayor.
Everyone keeps asking me, Omar, why aren't you doing more videos?
As a state senator with a second full-time job and a kid on the way, I just haven't been able to find the time.
I've also been fighting for you, passing things like tuition-free college for working-class families, rideshare protections for our Uber and Lyft drivers, and the legalization of fentanyl testing strips.
To make an affordable Minneapolis that works for everyone, we need a mayor that works as hard as you do.
I'm ready to work hard to, one, build a Minneapolis that working people can afford to call home.
Two, protect our city from a hostile White House.
And three, diversify our city's public safety response.
By increasing the minimum wage to $20 by 2028 and passing rent stabilization to stop price gouging and incentivizing new construction, we can protect workers.
Protecting all of our communities from Donald Trump means not letting NPD interact with ICE, whether it's for an immigration raid or not.
Our residents deserve a mayor that will stand up to Donald Trump and say, no, not in our community.
So notice the pattern.
The pattern here is take the most radical positions in the Democratic Party, put a diverse face on them, and then run that for a mayor of a major American city.
That's what Zoran Mamdani is.
Zoran Mamdani is just Democrat Socialist of America, but also he happens to have a diverse ethnic heritage.
And so that makes him sort of coded as fun to vote for for white progressive ladies living in New York.
And the same thing is happening here with Omar Fate, who's running for Minneapolis mayor.
There's been a lot of focus put on the fact that he's Somali in origin, that that's his ethnicity anyway.
And that actually is really only relevant insofar as he is a typical Democratic socialist of America type who is racially diverse, which is going to be the new model for Democratic candidates going forward.
It is the thing they're looking for.
It's Bernie Sanders, but black, right?
Bernie Sanders, but Somali.
Bernie Sanders, but Zoran Mamdani.
That's what they are looking for right now.
And his positions are unbelievably radical.
I mean, this is what the Democratic Party is looking for.
What they are attempting to do is that they had a choice, the Democratic Party.
They could take positions that are broadly popular with the American people, or what they could do is take positions that are popular with college-educated white single ladies.
And then they could hope that racial solidarity would carry them across the finish line.
And it appears as though they are doing the latter.
It appears that they're basically taking, if you go back to the Barack Obama sort of analysis, the Barack Obama pitch in 2008, the reason he won a broad victory is because if you go back to his campaign, he campaigned as a moderate on virtually every issue.
And also, because he was racially diverse, that meant that a lot of Americans felt very good about voting for him because by voting for him, you could show that America wanted to move past its terrible racial history.
And then by 2012, he was running as a very far-left candidate and hoping to cobble together a majority-minority coalition with enough college-educated white ladies to get over the finish line.
And the Democratic Party is still stuck in the Obama model.
But what's weird about the Obama model is that it abandons the Obama technocracy.
Instead, it's basically tear down all the systems and replace them, if at all, with a gigantically centralized government.
So if you look at the actual positions being taken by Omar Fateh in Minneapolis, he says that with Donald Trump back in the Oval Office, the progress toward equity and justice that our communities have worked so hard to create is in jeopardy.
Mayor Fry has said that our approach to fighting Trump is extreme.
He's wrong.
The only way to stand up to Trump and his posse of unelected billionaires is to create a city that is radically inclusive and stands up for those who are most at risk.
So what exactly does that mean?
It means that he wants the Minneapolis Police Department to be forced not to work with ICE, for example, as he says.
Ensure that events like the Trans Equity Summit are fully funded and prioritized.
Increase funding to services that support housing safety and economic justice, such as LGBTQ plus and BIPOC people are some of the highest at risk for losing their housing, being overcriminalized by MPD and being harassed by their employer.
He also wants the city to build a bunch of housing, right?
Because public housing has always been a massive boon.
It's always been totally successful.
I'm being sarcastic.
It's really been a giant fail.
He wants to reform public safety by essentially hampering the MPD's ability to police inside the city.
This is the New Democratic Party.
The New Democratic Party is not a technocratic party, a sort of Big Ten party.
It is a hard left party that attempts to win over more moderate, ethnically diverse voters by putting up candidates who look like them.
That is the idea here.
That is why the Democratic Party is doing what it's doing.
And this is also why, I believe in the end, Gavin Newsom's candidacy for the presidency is going to fail.
So Gavin Newsom is clearly running for president, obviously.
I don't know on what basis he's running for president.
It's not like California is in boom times.
It's not as though California is doing like an amazing, amazing job.
Again, I left California.
My family left California.
My business left California.
And I talk to people who still live in California all the time.
And they are thinking about moving because the cost of living is unbelievably high.
The taxes are awful.
The regulations are awful.
And the quality of life has gone down.
But because Gavin Newsom is trying to pose as the sort of anti-Trump fighter, he thinks that's enough to get him across the finish line in a Democratic primary.
I have my doubts.
I do not think that the model that Gavin Newsom is pursuing is likely to succeed in a presidential primary for the Democratic Party.
But he's out there, you know, pushing his agenda.
And that agenda, by the way, continues to be be all things to all people, which I do not think is going to work in the new era of radical Democratic Party politics.
So for example, he's dancing around still the transing of the children.
Here he was just yesterday doing that.
What about for your values?
I mean, is eight years old too young?
Yeah, I mean, look, now that I have a nine-year-old, just became nine.
Come on, man.
I get it.
So those are legit.
You know, it's interesting.
Just the issue of age, I haven't.
As I, and as someone that's been so focused on equality, broadly, LGBT rights, particularly gay marriage, the trans issue for me is also novel.
It's over the last few years.
I'm trying to understand as much as anyone else.
Whole pronoun thing, trying to understand all of that.
He's trying to understand it.
You see, he gets it like he's got a nine-year-old.
Like, what is he saying in that clip?
Do you have any idea what he's saying?
Like, seriously, any idea?
The answer is he's saying nothing.
When he gets to a controversial issue within the Democratic Party base, and he understands it's unpopular with the general American public, he tries to dance around it, but he has no actual, he has no actual answers.
He's doing the same thing, by the way, with regard to his California COVID policies.
Now, California had some of the most insane COVID policies in America.
I was living in California at the time.
It was nuts.
It's one of the major factors that drove my family away from California.
We were basically triple quarantined.
We were quarantined because of COVID.
Then we were quarantined again because there were riots outside.
And then we were quarantined again because there were wildfires.
It was like a triple quarantine.
It was nuts.
And Gavin Newsom was in charge of the state at that time, ensuring that nobody could go to the beach in the middle of COVID.
You couldn't go to a public park in the middle of COVID.
You couldn't take your kids to a playground.
Well, now he's telling Sean Ryan that he's directing an objective review of California's COVID policy.
Okay, well, again, what does this mean?
It means nothing.
What's interesting about this process is none of us have really reviewed in an objective way.
It's all through the lens of politics what we did right and what we did wrong.
And so I'll answer that question by telling you what I've just tasked.
I've asked our team to put together an objective review of everything we did right, everything we did wrong.
We're interviewing people that vehemently disagree with us, that oppose the mask mandates, that oppose the stay-at-home orders, people that are international experts.
We're stress testing our entire process.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda.
Yeah, well, I mean, what do you mean coulda, shoulda, woulda?
You were the governor.
You're inspecting your entire process.
Like, how about you just apologize for the stuff that you did?
But he's not going to do that.
But again, this is the guy who's trying to become the Democratic Party nominee.
And I would suggest that he is stuck in the in-between.
He wants to pose on the one hand as a technocratic Obama type who is interested in the abundance agenda.
And on the other hand, he still wants to cosplay as a political radical by spitting at Trump.
That's pretty much the Gavin Newsom pitch right here.
I just don't think that it's going to play.
I don't.
Because again, there's too many issues on which he's been found to be dishonest.
For example, he said yesterday on Sean Ryan that there was talk that when the president of China, Xi Jinping, the dictator of China, when he visited California, that they basically cleaned all the poop off the streets in San Francisco so it didn't look bad.
Well, here he was explaining that that story is not true.
That's not true.
There's only one problem.
Actually, he said in 2023, it was kind of true.
You know, we hear a lot about San Francisco and the homelessness and pooping on the road and all that kind of stuff.
And it seemed like all of that was cleaned up when she came to town.
Is that true?
Complete.
That's complete.
The city, which, by the way, I'm no longer mayor, was organizing for dozens and dozens of foreign leaders, not just she, to arrive for APEC.
And the city, over the course of last year, had finally started to step up its game to address what's happening on the streets and sidewalks.
And there was no question when you have a major international conference that there was investments made to prepare the city as any convention and any city would.
So anyone would have cleaned it up.
But then he admitted actually back in 2023 that, yeah, they kind of just cleaned up for Xi Jinping.
I know folks say, oh, they're just cleaning up this place because all those fancy leaders are coming into town.
That's true because it's true.
But in the end, Gavin Newsom has to come up with some defense of why he's done such a great job.
And his defense is effectively, there are a lot of rich people living in California.
That's what he means by this.
So he makes the case that he's tired of people trashing blue states.
We're creating 71% of the country's GDP.
All right, here we go.
And we're, by the way, a donor state.
We provided $83.1 billion more than we received from the federal government.
Texas took $71.1 billion.
I'm not saying that to bash Texas, but you know what?
Pretty proud of my state.
I saw it above our weight, man.
71% of the country's GDP comes from blue counties.
These same crackup counties with all these crazy liberals that can't get out of their own way and the world's come to an end.
It's 71% of the economy of the country, man.
Okay, so I'd like to point out at this point how dishonest this statistic is.
There's no such thing as a donor state.
There are individuals in those states who pay the taxes.
The California state government is not donating any money to the federal government.
People who live in California are paying taxes to the federal government.
And then the federal government is spending that money back in California on welfare cases.
What he really means, there are a lot of rich people live in California.
Well, duh.
And more and more rich people are leaving California.
Whenever you use a stat, like it's sort of like when people talk about the country's trade deficit.
Okay, if I as an individual make a trade with a foreign country, that is not the United States making a trade with a foreign country.
That is me as an individual making a trade with a foreign firm.
That is not the United States collectively spending money in China or in Japan.
In the same way, when he says that California is a donor state, California is not donating anything.
Residents of California are paying higher federal income tax rates because they are making more money because California is an incredibly stratified society.
But the statistic that actually matters is what percentage of American welfare dollars are spent in California?
Good news.
I asked our sponsors over at Perplexity this question, and here is the answer.
Approximately 14% of all American welfare dollars are spent in California.
Total U.S. welfare spending as of 2024 was $1.048 trillion.
California's welfare spending was about $151 billion annually.
Why is California's share so high?
Well, California is the most populous state.
It has about 12% of the U.S. population.
California spends about 81% more per capita on welfare than the average of other states.
The state has a higher proportion of residents living below the poverty line, which increases demand for welfare programs.
Now, the stats that I'm citing have to do with California state policy.
The stat that he's citing has nothing to do with California state policy.
It has to do with the fact that a bunch of gigantic industries were founded in California, particularly in the tech sector.
And that everyone who can get out is now getting out if they are wealthy.
So citing the idea that California is a donor state, again, misses the point.
California is not donating anything.
That is a false statistic.
And he's relying on that false statistic in order to make the claim that his state is well governed.
Okay, well, it also happens to be that when he says that blue counties are generating or blue cities are generating 71% of GDP, does he just mean cities?
It turns out that across all of human history, cities generate an outsized percentage of commerce because there are lots of people living close Together.
The real question, if you're talking about government policy, is not: do cities generate lots of commerce?
Because, of course, they do.
You have people who are living very, very close together.
And when you have lots of people living in close quarters, those people tend to congregate and then make businesses.
For example, this is why throughout the modern era, the post-industrialization era, people have moved from rural areas to cities.
In fact, 94.2% of California's population lives in urban areas.
The real question is, what percentage of welfare dollars go to blue cities?
Good news.
I asked our sponsors over at Perplexity AI this question.
Nearly 60% of all welfare cases are found in large urban counties, which are predominantly governed by Democratic blue administrations.
Specifically, 89 large urban counties, home to about one-third of the U.S. population, account for almost 60% of the nation's welfare caseload.
So again, it is predictable that when you have big cities where people congregate, there will be more commerce.
The question is, why are there so many poor people in the areas governed by Democrats?
In areas that are not poor because they're rural.
In areas that are poor because of bad policymaking.
What he really should be looking at is the raw number of people who are poor living below the poverty line in California, not making excuses based on the rich people he derides as the source of the problem.
Alrighty, coming up, President Trump is moving toward the practical position on Russia and fast.
First, facts always come first because facts don't lie.
How many times have you read a clickbait title only to end up with a half-truth?
I mean, every time you open up the New York Times, actually.
If you want reliable, unbiased government data, look no further than usafacts.org.
They organize and contextualize official public data on the economy, education, health, and more into clear, interactive articles and charts.
Want to compare your state's average lifespan to the national average?
There's a chart for that.
Curious how the federal minimum wage has changed over the last decade?
It's right there in an easy-to-read timeline.
Ever wonder where your tax dollars actually go?
The USA Facts Tax Portal is your personal tour guide.
This free tool aggregates official federal, state, and local budget data so you can see the trend lines behind the headlines.
With current updates under the Big Beautiful bill, it's more important than ever to stay knowledgeable about government spending.
You can explore tax topics like who pays the most income tax?
What does it cost the IRS to collect each dollar?
And which states contribute the most and the least to federal revenue.
No commentary, no agendas, just the numbers you need to make informed decisions or ground your discussions in the Fact Plus.
There's no paywall, so you can get the data you deserve at usafact.org.
Meanwhile, in other news, the president of the United States is shifting his angle with regard to Vladimir Putin.
This, of course, is because, as I've said one million times, he lives in the world of reality.
The president yesterday announced that he would be increasing economic pressure on Moscow if there's no peace deal with Ukraine in 50 days.
He says the United States will impose very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days.
So either Trump could choose to impose tariffs and sanctions or sanctions on countries that actually do business with Russia.
So it's not just direct trade with Russia, which of course the United States does not have a ton of direct trade with Russia, but we could theoretically attempt to impose secondary sanctions on countries that are looking at doing business with Russia.
Again, that is not the tool in our arsenal that is likely to have the most effective outcome.
We've been trying commerce-related tools against Putin for a while.
Instead, what he has done is basically shipped oil to places like China and India in order to get around all of that.
It doesn't mean his economy is booming.
It absolutely is not.
It's done economic damage to Russia, but it's enough for them to carry on the war.
The bigger issue here is that President Trump has now said that the United States has reached a deal with NATO that will send weapons and air defenses to Ukraine within days.
So President Trump announced this yesterday first.
He ripped into Vladimir Putin saying, you know, you keep misleading me and you keep jabbering and nothing is coming of it.
I speak to him a lot about getting this thing done.
And I always hang up and say, well, that was a nice phone call.
And then missiles are launched into Kiev or some other city.
And I said, strange.
And after that happens, three or four times you say, the talk doesn't mean anything.
He's fooled a lot of people.
He fooled Bush.
He fooled a lot of people.
He fooled Clinton, Bush, Obama.
Biden needed it for me.
But what I do say is that at a certain point, you know, ultimately talk doesn't talk.
It's got to be action.
It's got to be results.
So, again, that is the exact right position for President Trump to take.
And again, he went through every other iteration before coming to this conclusion.
He was never an isolationist.
He was never an America small power guy.
That was never who President Trump was.
And he came to the proper conclusion here because he doesn't want Vladimir Putin winning the war in Ukraine, period.
He said, listen, I am very unhappy with Russia.
One of the reasons that you're here today is to hear that we are very unhappy, I am, with Russia.
But we'll discuss that maybe a different day.
But we're very, very unhappy with them, and we're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days.
So, again, the tariffs are one thing, and President Trump thinks of that as a major blow against Russia because he loves tariffs and he loves the use of tariffs as a weapon of power.
But the bigger thing that he's doing is he's saying we're sending weapons and NATO is paying for it, which is the proper solution.
That, of course, is the proper solution.
The biggest issue with regard to the military support for Ukraine is that if you cut off the weapons completely, well, Europe gets attacked together.
Well, the weapons that Ukraine is currently using in the field are American-made.
And so you don't have actual weaponry in the field.
There's a transitional period.
President Trump is saying, listen, they can continue to use American weapons.
NATO just has to pay a bigger share.
This is America-first policy.
This is good policy.
Here's the president.
Just, you know, they're paying for everything.
We're not paying anymore.
We have an ocean separating us.
I said, we have a problem.
We make the best stuff, but we can't keep doing this.
And Biden should have done this years ago.
He should have done it from the beginning, but he didn't.
He didn't know he was there.
So, you know, again, he is right about this.
The NATO chief, Mark Rudy, he says this is a totally responsible decision by President Trump.
You called me on Thursday that you had taken a decision.
And the decision is that you want Ukraine what it needs to have to maintain, to be able to defend itself against Russia, but you don't want Europeans to pay for it, which is totally logical.
And this is building on the tremendous success of the NATO summit.
That, of course, is exactly, exactly right.
Admiral James Stavrides, who's certainly been a very outspoken critic of the president, even he is admitting that this is the right move by President Trump.
What I would like to see is a provision for the United States to send more harpoon missiles to go after the Black Sea Fleet, more high Mars surface-to-surface weapons that can reach deep behind Russian lines, more offensive cyber capability, and Kate, maybe some more F-16 aircraft, all of which are very capable offensively.
I think that is what could move Putin to the negotiating table, which is what we want on our side.
So, again, President Trump living in the world of reality and responding to what is happening in the world.
Okay, meanwhile, it seems that the tariffs, President Trump's tariffs, have started to have some actual impact on the inflation rate, which of course was predictable.
Again, the laws of economics are not easily bucked.
We were told for years that if Democrats just spent endlessly, that they could continue to do that and inflation would never catch up.
This was modern monetary theory, which was promoted by Senator Elizabeth Warren, for example, and it wasn't true.
It just had no basis in reality.
And then we got hit with 40-year highs in inflation.
Well, we've also been told that because the inflation rate right now is not spiking because of the tariffs, that means that maybe tariffs don't actually increase inflation.
No, they do.
It's just there are countervailing factors.
The final inflation rate on prices is the confluence of a bunch of things.
So you can have price inflation from the tariffs, but you can also have a bunch of housing that gets unstuck and the prices go down.
And when you aggregate all that together, it doesn't look like a tremendous increase in inflation.
However, inflation did heat up to 2.7% in June, according to the Labor Department.
That is faster than May's increase of 2.4%.
And in line with expectations for economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal, core inflation, that excludes food and energy, was 2.9%.
Prices of household furnishings and supplies rose by 1% in June, according to the Wall Street Journal, compared with May.
Prices of video and audio products rose 1.1%.
Apparel prices rose 0.4%.
Prices of new cars fell 0.3%, and that is because people are just buying fewer cars.
When people buy fewer things, the price goes down.
Month over month, consumer prices rose 0.3% in June compared with May, as economists had expected.
So this would be the reason why Jay Powell over at the Federal Reserve has not been decreasing the interest rates, because he's been afraid that if he does, he is going to fuel another inflation-based cycle.
Now, a lot of those costs are being passed on directly to consumers.
Obviously, it's what tariffs do.
Prices go up.
You pay more for the product.
Goldman Sachs economists estimate U.S. consumers will end up paying 70% of tariffs' direct costs.
Walmart said in May that it would be forced to raise prices.
Ralph Loren has said it was considering raising price increases as well.
Chicago Fed President Austin Goolsby said on Friday, continued tariff threats make it harder to figure out where inflation is headed.
He said the more we keep adding things to the mix, they make it harder to figure out, like, are prices going to be rising or not, the more it's just throwing more dirt back into the air.
And this is why the Federal Reserve is being quite cautious at this point.
And again, a lot of this stuff is in the air.
The EU right now is threatening retaliatory tariffs if no deal is met with the United States.
Now, again, I think that the administration, particularly Treasury Secretary Scott Besson, is going to be negotiating a bevy of deals over the course of coming weeks to avoid an August 1st actual snap into place of large-scale tariffs on many of our major trade partners.
I don't think that's something that the Treasury Secretary wants.
And I think that if the inflation rates increase and if the markets start to roil, President Trump will respond to that incentive structure as he historically has.
The negative take on President Trump's trade policy is the supposed taco of it, right?
The Trump always chickens out.
But the actual way to read that is President Trump responds to incentives in the real world.
That's not chickening out.
That's called finding new data and then responding to it.
However, the EU is threatening retaliation.
According to Politico, the European Union is looking at targeting 72 billion euros in U.S. goods in a second round of trade countermeasures, including aircraft, cars, and car parts, according to a list seen by Politico on Monday.
The bulk of those exports targeted are industrial goods, totaling 65.7 billion euros.
6.4 billion euros in agricultural products would also be hit if EU countries back the new retaliatory tariffs.
And that includes bourbon whiskey, despite intense lobbying from France and Ireland to shield the drinks sector from President Trump's reprisals.
The biggest line item is aircraft and aircraft parts, with tariffs set to target almost 11 billion euros of U.S. exports, which, of course, would mostly strike Boeing.
So, again, everybody is ready to go weapons up.
And so it's not as though things couldn't go wrong here.
They could.
I mean, this is why we need to come to some trade deals and write fast.
The goal here should be freer trade with our allies, and it should be to box in places like China.
And this is also why it's a mistake right now to target Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
You can agree that he's always late, but the reality is that he should not be lowering the interest rates while the inflation rate ticked up this month.
That would be a mistake.
But according to Axios, President Trump's war on the Federal Reserve is taking a more concrete, legally actionable form, putting the central bank's independence in the crosshairs.
For months, President Trump's exasperation with Fed Chair Jerome Powell over not cutting interest rates has taken the form of increasingly angry comments and social media posts.
Now, Trump appointees are trying to lay out legal predicates to fire Powell for cause, specifically that the Fed's $2.5 billion headquarters renovation project has included changes not approved by a federal planning authority or that Powell lied to Congress about the project.
That was the subtext of a memo from the Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vogt.
Powell denied to Congress last month the project contains several luxury features.
Vogt's letter suggested the Fed had changed plans that had already been blessed by the National Capital Planning Commission in 2021.
Some members of the NCPC, the National Capital Planning Commission, have been quick to toe the White House's line on the Fed project.
The new NCPC chair, Will Scharf, said at an NCPC meeting last week, the Fed project includes serious deviations from plans the NCPC had approved.
It looks like a Taj Mahal near the national wall, said fellow Trump-appointed commissioner Michael Blair.
Now, again, I think that this is A gigantic mistake in the markets.
This would be a big mistake in the markets.
Firing Jerome Powell over a construction project at the Federal Reserve, as though what Jerome Powell's chief goal is, is to build Mar-a-Lago at the Federal Reserve.
What?
To what end?
Why would he do that in order to enrich the building?
I mean, unless he's connected with the contractors in some way, which I have no evidence of.
And I'm not going to speculate that that's what he's doing because, again, I don't like to speculate in the absence of evidence.
What would the motivation be here?
I'm making a big, beautiful federal building that I'm not going to be occupying in a year because Jerome Powell's term expires.
That makes no sense.
If the president were to fire Jerome Powell, that would be a mistake.
Not because I think Jerome Powell's great at his job, I don't, but because that would send a signal to markets that President Trump is intervening in the interest rate discussion directly in order to facilitate certain numbers, certain things he wants to do that are not necessarily in consonance with the Federal Reserve's actual mission at this point.
So again, things could go wrong.
I've said for a long time, the biggest threat to the Trump administration is not his immigration policy or his foreign policy or his domestic policy other than these things called tariffs that could theoretically really, really harm his economic policy.
It's all about the economy.
If the economy stays good, Trump will be popular.
If the economy goes wrong, Trump will not be popular.
It is, in fact, that simple.
And he's doing a lot of great things with regards to cutting the size and scope of government.
So yesterday, the Supreme Court cleared the way for President Trump to shrink the Education Department.
Of course, this is how they should have ruled.
They ruled six to three that the Trump administration can start mass layoffs at the Education Department, halting a lower court ruling that had blocked the White House's plans.
And again, the President of the United States is the head of the federal executive branch.
The education department is underneath him.
He, of course, should be able to fire who he wants inside the executive branch.
The order, according to the Wall Street Journal, clears the way for Education Secretary Linda McMahon to weaken the department from within.
She has said she is leading the agency's final mission while acknowledging that eliminating it altogether would require the approval of Congress, something that political observers say is unlikely.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the court's decision, quote, hands the executive the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out.
That's ridiculous.
I'm sorry, that's just ridiculous.
The Congress does not have the ability to run the executive branch in terms of how the law is actually implemented.
That is a struggle between Congress and the executive branch.
And the executive branch can fire whomever they please.
The notion that Sonia Sotomayor gets to sit there and tell the executive branch that it must rehire X number of people in order to effectuate this law is like that.
No, the answer is no.
That's not how this works.
The Supreme Court majority said differently.
It was an unsigned order.
Again, the three liberal justices were the ones who dissented, not a shock.
The lower court rulings had forced the education department to pause its plans to scale back.
And so there's been a lot of back and forth with these particular employees, but this is the right decision by the Supreme Court.
And by the way, when you talk about the brokenists, right, who I mentioned a little bit early, people who think the institutions are broken, our education system is completely broken, totally broken.
It needs to be revamped on a dramatic scale.
I mean, just an indicator of how broken our education system is.
So the National Education Association is so far to the left.
I mean, so incredible.
And they hold so many American students as hostages to their bizarre agenda.
Believe it or not, the Anti-Defamation League, of which I am no fan, I think the ADL does a lot of terrible work.
I think some of the things they do are good.
And I think a lot of the things they do are politically motivated by leftist principles.
However, the NEA is so far to the left, it will not even use the ADL, the left-wing ADL's material on anti-Semitism and Holocaust education.
That's how far to the radical left the NEA is.
The ADL isn't far enough to the radical left for the NEA.
There's a member-backed measure to stop the NEA from using the ADL's Holocaust education.
Now, listen, I can argue with the ADL's standards for Holocaust education and what they're actually teaching.
I would do so from a right-wing perspective.
The reason the NEA is trying to stop that is because they actually just don't like Jews in a general way.
The NEA is so far to the radical left that they've signed on to the Zorin Mamdani radicalization of the Democratic Party.
In a letter signed by 378 Jewish organizations, the group said the NEA measure would effectively boycott ADL's widely respected anti-bias and Holocaust education curricula.
Again, this is not a defense of the ADL.
It's pointing out how insane the NEA is.
Why?
Well, because the NEA is saying that you can't have this sort of education because of Gaza.
So when the Trump administration announces that it is going to break apart the education system that is essentially just federal and state subsidies to unions like the NEA, all I can do is cheer.
And meanwhile, the administration continues to find new ways of effectuating its immigration agenda.
According to the Washington Post, the Trump administration has declared that immigrants who arrived in the United States illegally are no longer eligible for a bond hearing as they fight deportation proceedings in court.
In a July 8th memo, Todd Lyons, acting director of ICE, told officers such immigrants should be detained for the duration of their removal proceedings, which could take months or years, which of course makes sense.
Typically, illegal immigrants have been allowed to request a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
But Lyons said, no, because what we're going to do is there will be a bond hearing.
If anybody's released, they just disappear, obviously.
In rare exceptions, immigrants may be released on parole, but that decision will be up to an immigration officer, not a judge, he wrote.
The provision is based on a section of immigration law that says unauthorized immigrants shall be detained after their arrest.
Lyons wrote that the policy is expected to face legal challenges.
Of course, of course.
The sweeping new detention policy comes days after Congress passed a spending package that will allocate $45 billion over the next four years to lock up illegal immigrants for civil deportation proceedings.
Now, again, the goal here is to make it harder to be an illegal immigrant in the United States absconding from American law, right, to stop people from being arrested.
Then they go for a bond hearing.
Then a friendly judge just decides to jailbreak everybody.
And then they end up back in Chicago hiding from ICE again.
That is the idea.
Mark Krokorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, says detention is absolutely the best way to approach this.
If you can do it, you're pretty much guaranteed To be able to remove the person if there's a negative finding, if he's in detention.
Now, of course, the left is going nuts over all of this.
Gavin Newsom.
Again, it is amazing to me that Gavin Newsom thinks he's a presidential candidate, but apparently he does.
Gavin Newsom, he's trying to make the case that illegal immigration on a wide scale is necessary to the American economy.
So it's not insignificant.
Backbone, I mean, it's half of our agricultural workers.
You care about farmers and ranchers?
If that's what you're like your number one go-to commitment, then you sure as hell should care about their workers.
41% of our construction workers, Texas and California, have the highest percentage of their construction workers that would fill into that category.
How the hell do we rebuild Altadena and Palisades?
We're going to need a peak next year.
We estimate about 70,000 workers without that workforce.
Ain't going to happen.
You're struggling here.
You imagine a peak there.
Again, why is he bragging about the number of illegal immigrants who have jobs in his state?
That is such a bizarre brag.
Again, if the basic idea here is that illegal immigration is good for the country because it undercuts the wage base, I'd love for Democrats to make that explicit.
Bill Maher, who again has become maybe the last reasonable man on the left, he had to explain borders to actor John Leguizamo.
Part of this is a backlash to how badly Biden handled the immigration situation.
It can't just be like, come one, come all, which it was.
There's plenty of room here, and we need room.
Letit, there's plenty of room in America.
Come on, there's no lack of room in America.
But it's never about room.
It's about resources and about like having a countries have to have a border.
Again, the fact that this is a commonsensical statement that somehow is being bucked by so many people on the left is one of the reasons why President Trump remains successful on this issue.
Representative Kevin Kiley, Republican congressman from California, is pointing out that California is so radical that Karen Bass, mayor of California, is handing out cash cards to illegal immigrants.
And now Bass is giving out these free cash cards.
And apparently one of the ways you can get one is if you're too afraid to go into work.
Well, number one, this fear, to the extent that it exists, is largely driven by Karen Bass and Gavin Newsome, who have purposely incited fear and driven these rioters into a state of frenzy.
But number two, if we say that if you're too afraid to go to work, you get free cash payments, I think that all of a sudden we're going to find there are a lot more people who are suddenly too afraid to go into work.
But the real kicker in all this is that Karen Bass has chosen, of all groups, Cherla, to distribute the cards.
Now, remember, this is the group that got $34 million in funding and then played a central role in organizing the riot.
Well, I mean, again, not wrong.
And the fact that the Democrats have embraced that radical agenda explains why they are so unpopular.
It'll be fascinating to see.
There's a debate inside the Democratic Party.
The debate is, are they unpopular because they are old school technocrats who didn't solve any of the problems?
Or are they unpopular because actually they're way too radical?
The radicals always have the better of that particular argument because it's easy to point to the thing that is as opposed to the thing that they think in their head might be.
It is a much easier presentation to somebody to sell a vision of an alternative future where the rules don't apply than it is to defend a status quo.
And so it's likely the Radicals will succeed.
But if they succeed in the Democratic Party, it is hard to see how they succeed with the American people who remain a non-radical people.
The success of President Trump, I've said this the entire campaign, the success of President Trump is that shockingly, Donald Trump is the most moderate voice in American politics at this point.
Donald Trump has a commonsensical approach to the issues.
I don't necessarily agree with everything that Donald Trump does, of course, because I don't agree with what every president does all the time.
But President Trump, he responds to incentive structures and he has occupied the center on pretty much every issue.
Americans, for example, just to take an issue where I disagree with them, Americans do not want major cuts to social services.
President Trump does not want major cuts to social services.
Americans don't want high taxes.
President Trump doesn't want high taxes.
Americans want a strong foreign policy that's not surrender to America's enemies.
Same thing President Trump wants.
Americans don't want a vast influx of illegal immigrants.
Guess what?
What is President Trump's position?
Meanwhile, the Democrats are abandoning every 80-20 issue in favor of the 20%, and then they don't understand why they're unpopular.
And the way back for Democrats is not going to be in somehow lecturing from on high the way that Barack Obama is attempting to do.
The only way back for Democrats is for them to abandon Obama 2012 and get back to Obama 2008, which is to say, embrace in policy the moderation that Barack Obama tried to promote in 2008 in rhetoric.
All righty, folks, coming up, I have a couple of updates on the Epstein case.
Dan Bongino is back at work, which is definitely a good development.
Remember, in order to watch, you have to be a member.
If you're not a member, become a member.
Use Coach Shapiro.
Check out for two months free on all annual plans.
▲
Export Selection