Month: February 2025

There is an old saying that if it weren’t for double standards, liberals wouldn’t have any standards at all. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is the living embodiment of that statement.

In recent years, Warren and many other Democrats have waged an almost daily war on the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Now that they want to stop everything that Trump is trying to do, they are relying on courts to do it and saying that anyone who would undermine the legitimacy of those courts is a threat to democracy.

Watch the side-by-side video of Elizabeth Warren below. The first half is from last year, the second half is from this month.

The courts are either undermining or saving democracy, it all depends if Elizabeth Warren agrees with their rulings.

Strangely, Warren isn’t currently calling for the creation of a code of ethics to remove judges like she was last year. pic.twitter.com/KHE4lK7Z3c

— MAZE (@mazemoore) February 11, 2025

That second half is from an appearance Warren made on the Rachel Maddow show this week.

The Hill reported:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said the Trump administration is putting the nation “on the edge of a constitutional crisis” following a series of sweeping executive orders and funding freezes targeting federal agencies.

“We’ve got our toes right on the edge of a constitutional crisis here. But here’s the thing: It may be the case that Donald Trump is so full of confidence that he thinks he can wave his wand, and whatever he wants to happen will happen,” Warren said during a Monday appearance on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.”…

“My view right now is the courts are where we are hanging on to our constitutional structure,” Warren told Maddow. “They still have the power to hold everybody else in this country in contempt if they do not follow lawfully issued court orders.”

Here’s another example of this liberal logic. It’s AOC in 2023, telling CNN that the Biden administration should ignore a SCOTUS ruling, simply because the Democrats didn’t like it.

“The Biden Administration should ignore the court” – AOC, 2023 pic.twitter.com/fHF4PAykQT

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) February 11, 2025

The Democrats are like two year-olds throwing a tantrum in the cereal aisle of the grocery store when they don’t get what they want. All they care about is power and control.

The post Watch Elizabeth Warren Contradict Elizabeth Warren About the Importance of Court Rulings (D)epending on What’s at Stake (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Trump administration is getting down to business weeding out the seeds of the Chinese Communist Party’s influence in strategic footholds internationally. In recent days, the future of the Panama Canal has seemingly been secured—calling time on the creep of CCP influence. 

In securing and facilitating maritime trade between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the strategic value of the Panama Canal is obvious. The bilateral relationship between Panama and the U.S. began in 1903, and, while of course there have been various disruptions, it has been altogether oriented toward securing the free flow of maritime trade (a vital national interest for Washington) via the canal. It is a relationship that turns on permanent neutrality of Panama. 

The U.S. and Panama have enjoyed deep economic engagement, with American exports accounting for 25 percent of all goods and services imported by Panama, including a staggering 60 percent of Panama’s imported food. The U.S. remains the central customer of the Panama Canal; over 70 percent of all transits head to or from American ports. 

The U.S. is also the leading source of foreign direct investment in Panama. According to the CRS, China leads (slightly) the U.S. as Panama’s key trading partner, with Beijing accounting for 17.2 percent of total merchandise trade, compared to Washington’s 16.1 percent. 

The CCP Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has worked to degrade the U.S-Panama relationship, eroding the stability of American strategic interests in the Panama Canal along with it. In 2017, Panama became the first country in Latin America to sign on the dotted line for the BRI. This agreement allowed the CCP to bed down and expand influence for its long-term strategic benefit. Strings are most definitely attached. 

Trump called time on this, and in a matter of days Panama’s government agreed it could not have its cake and eat it too. Since 1997, a Chinese firm has operated two of the five ports in the Panama Canal. These happen to be the ports at both ends of the canal. Already, Panama’s supreme court has received a lawsuit to cancel the Hong Kong–based firm’s contract. 

Coupled with cancelling Panama’s BRI partnership, and potentially allowing free transit for American military vessels, these efforts might be enough to rebalance U.S. power in the immediate region. Of course, this invites potential international arbitration brought by China and poses questions around the neutrality of the Panama Canal. We will wait and see.

Events unfolding rapidly in Panama have direct relevance for Australia, not least the U.S.-Australia alliance. The U.S. is among Australia’s largest sources of foreign direct investment, and Washington and Canberra celebrate a military-strategic “ride or die” bromance. The U.S. increasingly looks to the Australian continent as a forward base for Indo-Pacific operations. Yet it is China that keeps Australia afloat. 

China is Australia’s largest trade partner, accounting for more than a quarter of Australian international trade. In 2023, this trade increased by almost 10 percent. Australia’s labour government has effectively worked to “stabilize” ties with Beijing. Bilateral relations for the decade prior had been dire, from all out-trade war to Australia’s domestic security fabric fraying over the intent of one state (Victoria) to sign up to the BRI. Thwarted by Canberra, the BRI deal is dead in the water. Yet the CCP’s tentacles remain. 

Australian lobsters and wine are flowing again to Beijing, and there are various instances of Canberra kowtowing to China. As illustrated by a cyber-attack attributed to a group in China, Australian policy increasingly appears to be to publish a short statement and move right along.

Canberra continues to evade American ire over its China relationship. Under Trump 2.0, this could change. In keeping with strategic U.S. port challenges, one must consider the Port of Darwin debacle. The Port of Darwin, in Australia’s Northern Territory, is Canberra’s nearest port to Asia. In the Australian Government’s own words, it is a critical piece of infrastructure. 

In 2015, the Landbridge Group—a Chinese company—was awarded a 99-year lease to operate the Port of Darwin. The Landbridge Group provides an upbeat CCP-esque mantra encapsulated in its vision statement for the Port of Darwin: “Partnering in growth, connecting people and supporting potential”. 

Fears that said growth, connections and potential would have Chinese characteristics led to a 2021 Australian defence department security assessment into the lease of Port of Darwin to Landbridge Group. The findings (apparently) concluded there were insufficient national security grounds to overturn the lease. 

Enduring Australian intelligence and defense concerns led to the new Australian government’s announcement in 2022 that it would review the circumstances surrounding the Port of Darwin lease. In a public statement by stealth published late one Friday evening in 2023, the government announced that there is a “robust” system in place to manage risks, extant monitoring mechanisms of said risks are “sufficient” and ongoing. It concluded that “it was not necessary to vary or cancel the lease”.

Pre-dating the 2015 lease is the 2011 agreement struck by Australia and the U.S. known as Marine Rotational Force–Darwin (MRF-D). For six months every year, U.S. marines arrive in Darwin on rotation to train alongside the Australian Defence Force and other allies and partners. MRF-D serves to strengthen interoperability between Australia and U.S. forces, “advance our shared goals, demonstrate the… endurance of [the] alliance, and contribute to regional security.” 

MRF-D remains a “key touchpoint of the Australia-U.S. security Alliance.” It is therefore no wonder the nine-mile drive from MRF-D’s location at RAAF Base Darwin to Landbridge Group’s Port of Darwin operations office is so problematic. Kept under wraps by Australian officials are the plans to keep Australia’s two mates apart in Darwin. With China elbowing in on the Port of Darwin, it has long been rumored the U.S. would secure a private port in the area (Glyde Point), about 25 miles away from Darwin’s current port. 

The Port of Darwin is a strategic asset in the Indo-Pacific great game. Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese criticized the lease agreement while in opposition, but, in power, his fears appear to have evaporated. Australian leadership’s language around China is increasingly muted. For instance, an Australian citizen once “arbitrarily detained” in China and facing the death penalty is now simply in “detention.” 

Handing the CCP Australia’s single strategic northern port for a century and refusing to walk back the decision due to fear of Beijing’s economic wrath is business as usual for Canberra. Even in the absence of a BRI memorandum of understanding, Australia’s Port of Darwin problem has obvious BRI characteristics. 

Landbridge Group celebrates online its “plans to grow” Darwin Port by “developing the infrastructure to meet future customer needs…[providing] opportunity to increase trade with Asia through the company’s extensive business networks in the region”. 

Another fan of 99-year leases in the Indo-Pacific region appears to be the British government, which is intent on handing the Chagos Islands (in the Indian Ocean) over to Mauritius. The idea that any comfort can be gleaned from the provision of a 99-year lease to the U.S. for the strategic foothold that is Diego Garcia is beside the point. China has fervently worked to shore up its standing with Mauritius.

The South Pacific also finds itself on the receiving end of CCP effort and affection. The Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea are balancing Chinese capital and attention with long-held political commitments to the West.  Washington can’t be everywhere, funding everything, thwarting CCP creep in every corner of the globe. Nor should it be. Inked in agreements like the ANZUS Treaty, Australia has a responsibility and a commitment to take the lead in the South Pacific to share the security burden and take a load off Washington. 

Australia’s neighborhood is crowded by a deluge of ticking time bombs—the culmination of years of CCP inroads and erosion of strategic infrastructure and governance throughout the region. Canberra may point to Trump’s Panama Canal triumph and celebrate Washington’s intent to make its partners and allies pay their fair share, but this does not exempt Australia from making its own tough decisions. 

Lest Canberra be forced to “pick” between the largest economic partner (China) and its security provider (the U.S.), Australia should start thinking outside the box. Decisions to hand strategic infrastructure that provides regional uplift, and not least hosts U.S. marines, to the CCP is likely to draw attention from the Trump administration. 

Australia’s value proposition is its strategic geography. Affording a “beachhead” for U.S. forces and allies to secure and stabilize the Indo-Pacific. It would appear that the Australian government has no incentive, let alone interest, in diverging from its policy of self-sanctioning when it comes to China. 

When (not if) Trump’s team interrogates Australia’s value proposition, beyond political taglines of “mateship,” Canberra must be ready to respond. Offering Washington a 99-year lease of Australia’s Coco-Keeling Islands or of Christmas Island, both located in the Indian Ocean, would be an apt place to start. 

Australia’s expenditure on defense is currently 2 percent of GDP and forecasted to reach a height of 2.4 percent by 2028, less than half of Trump’s 5 percent benchmark for NATO partners.  Some tough conversations are about to occur, and something tells me Australia’s “she’ll be right” attitude will no longer suffice. 

The post Panama Folds as Australia Ducks for Cover appeared first on The American Conservative.

There is an old saying that great men are seldom good men. The reason for this is that people we call “great” often have real or imagined duties well outside their families and friends, making it difficult to meet their daily obligations. My grandmother once expressed disappointment after reading the memoir of an evangelist she admired when she learned he wasn’t the family man she expected.

Imagine a person who is generous in his support of charities and great causes but neglects his family, to the point that his children live in poverty and squalor. That’s the thought experiment at the heart of a seemingly arcane theological dispute between Vice President J.D. Vance, Pope Francis, and the American Catholic bishops.

“Ordo amoris,” or the order of love, has become the surprise catchphrase of the second Trump administration. Many who voted for Donald Trump and Vance see the federal government as being like the neglectful parent who may have serious social concerns but is not meeting its primary fiduciary duty to the American people.

While an extreme example, it wouldn’t be moral under Catholic social teaching properly understood or basic common sense to let your children starve to serve some greater good or simply because you accidentally allowed other worthy concerns to consume all your attention. 

“What is built on the basis of force, and not on the truth about the equal dignity of every human being, begins badly and will end badly,” Pope Francis wrote in an open letter rebuking the administration. “I exhort all the faithful of the Catholic Church, and all men and women of good will, not to give in to narratives that discriminate against and cause unnecessary suffering to our migrant and refugee brothers and sisters.”

Since the publication of Hillbilly Elegy, Vance has made the plight of the working class in the Rust Belt and Appalachia central to his political mission. That is a morally defensible priority even though there are poorer people elsewhere in the world with whom he has less direct, personal connection. The economic and cultural problems of the communities Vance is interested in also have serious implications for national prosperity and social solidarity.

Vance’s Christian detractors view issues like immigration almost solely through the prism of poor migrants being kept out of wealthy countries. But the costs and benefits of cheap and plentiful immigrant labor, legal or otherwise, are not shared equally across American society.

Many of the benefits of continuous mass immigration flow to affluent Americans who are not exposed to the costs much at all. PR stunts like flying illegal immigrants from strained border communities to Martha’s Vineyard were meant to both illustrate and counteract that. 

The working-class citizens and lawful permanent residents, many of the latter immigrants themselves, bear the costs while receiving fewer of the benefits. Yes, there are some macroeconomic upsides that are shared more broadly. But in general, the people in direct employment and wage competition with the new arrivals are not reaping the rewards of cheaper domestic services.

In most other contexts, a public policy where the benefits go disproportionately to corporations and the upwardly mobile while the costs are disproportionately concentrated among the downwardly mobile would be scrutinized as possibly unfair and unjust. Immigration is a major exception to this rule.

The broken border under former President Joe Biden created moral hazards for migrants themselves, as well as a political upheaval that even those tut-tutting Vance for raising impolitic questions must recognize. If it weren’t for the chaos along the southern border, it is possible that Trump and Vance wouldn’t be wielding power right now in the first place.

That’s not to say that there aren’t legitimate moral concerns about the human dignity of even illegal immigrants. There has been dehumanizing rhetoric and there likely will be excesses of the Trump deportation program. Ordo amoris doesn’t invalidate the parable of the Good Samaritan or more radical concepts of Christian love (though the latter are made possible by God, not government).

But there is some need for the reordering of loves and loyalties. Or more accurately, a restoration of their proper order. Whether that makes America great again remains to be seen. There’s a case to be made it was already great. Let’s hold out hope for good, too.

The post Vance’s Hierarchy of Goods appeared first on The American Conservative.

President Donald Trump says he wants a deal, not a war, with Tehran. “I would much prefer a Verified Nuclear Peace Agreement, which will let Iran peacefully grow and prosper,” he wrote last week on Truth Social.

He had better act fast. Negotiating an accord that constrains Iran’s nuclear energy program will take time. The one that President Barack Obama got took 20 months to negotiate, and forces opposing diplomacy may grow stronger in the months and years ahead. Meanwhile, Trump’s own position likely will diminish. Second-term presidents quickly learn that their political capital no longer accumulates—it dwindles.

Today Trump dominates the GOP, but on Iran, neocons are breaking ranks. “In my humble opinion, there is no such thing as a verifiable nuclear peace agreement with the Iranian regime, who are religious Nazis,” Senator Lindsey Graham wrote on X. Graham’s post came mere hours after Trump endorsed such an agreement. 

If the president intends to pursue diplomacy with Iran, he should act while his approval ratings among Republicans are sky-high, and he should publicly tie the initiative to his opposition to forever wars. Graham is a steadfast uber-hawk, but many GOP politicians would fall in line behind Trump, if only to avoid provoking the ire of America-Firsters.  

As anti-Iranian politicians in America seek to thwart diplomacy, Iran’s anti-American hardliners are challenging their own president’s support for talks. With President Masoud Pezeshkian at the helm, Tehran’s moderates have a powerful voice in government, but their position is precarious. Jamal Abdi—the president of the National Iranian American Council and a keen observer of Iran’s domestic politics—wrote to me that the “window for diplomacy on the Iranian side is narrow.” 

Abdi said that President Joe Biden’s diplomatic failures show that opportunities for constructive engagement can be fleeting. Biden had campaigned on restoring the Obama-era accord, from which Trump withdrew in 2018, but a lack of urgency and refusal to offer meaningful concessions doomed the election promise. In August 2021, less than seven months after Biden’s own inauguration, the hardliner Ebrahim Raisi became president, succeeding Hassan Rouhani, a relative moderate. Negotiations stalled.

After Raisi was killed in a helicopter crash last year, Iranians elected Pezeshkian, who is more moderate than even Rouhani. Today, Iranian hardliners see a sucker in the new president, and they see duplicity, not an olive branch, in Trump’s diplomatic gestures. Despite opposition, Pezeshkian has signaled to Washington that he wants to negotiate. In December, his vice president for strategic affairs wrote that, if Trump is serious about wanting to make a deal, “Iran is willing to have a dialogue that would benefit both Tehran and Washington.” 

Trump should take the offer. Successful diplomacy would vindicate Iran’s moderates and sideline its anti-American hardliners. Of course, this opportunity comes with corresponding risk. Murtaza Hussain of Drop Site News told me that “if things go south it will still be a political win for [Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei and the hardliners who will say, ‘I told you so.’”

Hussain is undoubtedly right about the lower-level hardliners, but Khamenei, who is playing a complex and evolving role in Iranian discourse, might not see diplomatic failure as a win. Abdi told me last Thursday that Khamenei is “providing rhetorical support” to the moderates and “publicly preparing the country for talks.” But Abdi cautioned: “How long he will hold that political space open is the question.” As it happens, not very long. On Friday, Khamenei said that negotiating with the U.S. is “unwise, unintelligent, and not honorable.” 

Nevertheless, Khamenei seems not to have prohibited his underlings from negotiating with the U.S. Most likely, Khameni is distancing himself from talks so that his reputation won’t be damaged if they fail. He may also be playing good cop, bad cop with his reformist president to enhance Tehran’s bargaining position. On X, Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group noted that Khamenei made similar comments in 2011 despite authorizing Iranian diplomats to meet in secret with U.S. officials. 

The biggest obstacle to diplomacy with Tehran may come not from the hardliners in America and Iran, but from those in Israel. Last week, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a joint White House news conference with Trump, played more to the U.S. president than to reporters in the room. “The Iran terror axis has never been weaker,” Bibi boasted. “But as we discussed, Mr. President, to secure our future and bring peace to our region, we have to finish the job.”

Trump, in the presence of Netanyahu, deviated from the prime minister’s talking points. Asked by an Israeli journalist if Iran’s present weakness means now is “the right time to hit their nuclear facilities,” Trump pushed back. “They’re not weak,” he said. “They’re very strong right now.” Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute tweeted a clip of the exchange and observed that Trump had demolished “the premise for the argument to attack.”

Parsi found another recent comment by Trump even more striking. Ahead of the meeting with Netanyahu, as Trump signed an executive order reimposing “maximum pressure” on Tehran, he said not only that he hoped to get a deal, but that “there are many people at the top ranks of Iran who do not want to have a nuclear weapon.” Writing in Responsible Statecraft, Parsi said that Trump’s comment is “problematic for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claims that Iran’s leaders are irrational and suicidal.” 

Why did Trump, during Netanyahu’s visit, make diplomatic overtures to Israel’s adversary? The president may have wanted to establish a tacit quid pro quo: He’ll do what Netanyahu wants on Gaza in exchange for leeway on diplomacy with Iran. During the joint press conference, Trump proposed that the U.S. would “take over” Gaza and have its inhabitants resettled abroad. In the months ahead, the Israeli premier will need to think twice about obstructing Trump’s Iran diplomacy plans, lest his ally in the White House reconsider this proposal. But once the Gaza crisis is in the rear-view mirror, Trump’s leverage will wane.

The Israel lobby sometimes opposes U.S. diplomacy with Iran more aggressively than does Israel itself. But, at the moment, Trump and his allies seem to hold some leverage over pro-Israel groups. After Elon Musk appeared to give a Nazi salute at a post-inauguration rally in January, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) dismissed the gesture as “awkward” and unintentional, urging “all sides” to “give one another a bit of grace, perhaps even the benefit of the doubt.” For the ADL, the statement was unusually restrained. 

Pro-Israel groups will choose their battles with Trump wisely, but they won’t roll over. Though the ADL downplayed Musk’s controversial gesture, days later it condemned Nazi-related jokes he had made on X. These groups will undoubtedly push back on diplomacy with Tehran, as the ADL has done in the past, but Trump’s best shot at a deal is to begin the process now, while they are wary of getting on his bad side.

Machiavelli once wrote, in reference to great political leaders, “Without opportunity, their skill would have been wasted, and without skill, the opportunity would have been in vain.” Trump is a skilled politician, and some combination of cunning and good fortune has given him a golden opportunity to get something he wants: a landmark nuclear deal with Iran. Wasting it would be a shame.

The post Iran Diplomacy Can’t Wait appeared first on The American Conservative.

Democrats have reacted to cuts at USAID as if Elon Musk and DOGE are cutting off heat and food for elderly Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Musk and DOGE are targeting spending that is shocking to most Americans. Spending that most people did not even know existed and which is disgusting in the face of what has happened in places like western North Carolina, and other American locations in dire need.

The reaction from Democrats has been so over the top that even some people on the left believe they are taking a massive political risk.

One of those people is Ruy Teixeira, a progressive analyst who is aligned with people like John Podesta and the Progressive Policy Institute.

He is a man of the left and he is sounding the alarm for Dems.

Teixeira recently wrote at the Free Press:

Defending USAID Is Political Suicide for Democrats

In policy terms, the Democrats have a point. The legality of DOGE’s strike on the agency is unclear. For the incredible amount of wasteful stuff in its budget—why did USAID grant $1.5 million for “diversity, equity, and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities”—USAID also provides basic aid, like nutrition and health assistance, to needy countries.

But politically, none of that matters a whit. Trump occupies the high ground in this fight, which is probably why he and Musk picked it. If voters dislike anything, it’s bureaucracy and foreign aid. And USAID is a 10,000-employee bureaucracy—housed in a palatial building on prime downtown real estate—that spends $40 billion a year on other countries.

He wraps up his article this way:

Okay, let’s recap the situation:

1. Democrats are unconditionally defending an obscure government institution at a time when even well-known and previously trusted institutions are regarded with intense suspicion. A key finding from New York Times polling in the 2024 election cycle was that voters overwhelmingly believe the political and economic system in America needs either major changes, or to be completely rebuilt.

2. This particular obscure institution does one of American voters’ least favorite things: provide foreign aid.

3. Finally, not only are Democrats blanket defending an obscure institution that does something American voters don’t particularly want to, they are defending it without explaining their own priorities. What aid would they preserve and what would they get rid of?

Ed Morrissey comments at Hot Air:

You know who loves USAID and its unaccountable structure? The progressive Academia elite that run it and other less-than-responsive federal bureaucracies. Why? It appeals to their elitism, and the flow of money without accountability allows for massive manipulations and social engineering. David covered ‘Internews” earlier today, a $500M annual expenditure in what is in essence a propaganda operation, or more likely a multitude of such operations.

You know who hates USAID and other less-than-accountable federal bureaucracies? Everyone else. Almost literally.

Democrats looked out of touch after the election. Today, they look downright crazy.

UPDATE: Watch this, it’ll make you laugh.

Elon and DOGE decimating USAID pic.twitter.com/4qx1b5CPd5

— FreedomToons (@Freedom_Toons) February 11, 2025

The post Liberal Analyst Says Democrats Are Committing ‘Political Suicide’ by Defending USAID Spending appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Trump just welcomed Marc Fogel back into the United States after he was released from captivity in Russia where he has been held since 2021.

This is something which Trump did repeatedly in his first term and now he is making it happen again.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio played a big role in this behind the scenes.

FOX News reports:

Freed American hostage Marc Fogel lands in US after prisoner swap with Russia

Marc Fogel, an American who had been detained in Russia since 2021, landed back in the U.S. on Tuesday.

Fogel, a history teacher who was working at the Anglo-American School in Moscow, returned to the U.S. after his release from Russia following talks with the Trump administration.

He was serving a 14-year sentence after his arrest in August 2021 at a Russian airport for possession of drugs, which his family said was medically prescribed marijuana.

Fogel was seen in a picture posted by the White House on social media smiling and raising his fist while wrapped in an American flag as he walked off the plane on U.S. soil.

Watch below:

WATCH: President Trump welcomes Marc Fogel outside of the White House pic.twitter.com/ullkBllrtB

— RSBN (@RSBNetwork) February 12, 2025

This is America first.

MARC FOGEL IS BACK!!!

PROMISES MADE, PROMISES KEPT!!! pic.twitter.com/ZMceoU0OfA

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 12, 2025

‘PROMISES MADE, PROMISES KEPT!’ President Trump greets freed American hostage Marc Fogel as he lands back in US after being detained in Russia since 2021. pic.twitter.com/5y74bInkLQ

— Fox News (@FoxNews) February 12, 2025

Fogel called President Trump a hero.

“I’m so happy to be back here.”

American teacher Marc Fogel calls Pres. Trump “a hero” as he meets with the president at the White House after being released by Russia. Fogel had been detained in Russia since being arrested on drug charges in 2021. https://t.co/6bR6TSZxKF pic.twitter.com/C9nx1riLvS

— ABC News (@ABC) February 12, 2025

This is fantastic. This is the Trump Effect.

The post BREAKING: President Trump Welcomes Home American Marc Fogel, Newly Released From Captivity in Russia (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Devin Nunes, CEO of Trump Media

On Tuesday evening President Trump announced he created a new Intelligence Advisory Board tasked with advancing his “America First” agenda.

The new advisory board will advise Trump on national security issues.

Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes will serve as the chairman.

ABC News reported:

The White House announced on Tuesday the formation of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, tasked with advising President Donald Trump on national security challenges and advancing the administration’s “America First” agenda.

Devin Nunes, chief executive officer of the Trump Media & Technology Group, which runs Truth Social, will serve as chairman. His general counsel, Scott Glabe, will also serve on the board.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s daughter-in-law, Amaryllis Fox Kennedy; longtime head of global government affairs for Blackstone Wayne Berman; former chief of staff Reince Priebus, former National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien; and Katie Miller, who’s the wife of Trump’s White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, will also join the board.

Recall that in December, President Trump said he would make former GOP Congressman Devin Nunes the chairman of his Intelligence Advisory Board.

Devin Nunes — the courageous fighter of the Intel community’s horrific Russia Collusion Lie — will now be chairman of Trump’s Intelligence Advisory Board. pic.twitter.com/DXVTGgrnjf

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) December 14, 2024

Former House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes broke the FISAgate story wide open after spearheaded an investigation into the FBI’s plot to frame Trump in 2016.

In 2018, Nunes released a 4-page FISA memo that revealed the FISA court was misled by former FBI and DOJ brass James Comey, Sally Yates, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe.

Noted pundit Byron York said the FISA memo also revealed a key point: “The FBI’s Andrew McCabe confirmed to the committee that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.”

Nunes previously sent a dozen criminal referrals to the Justice Department concerning leaks of “highly classified material” and conspiracies to lie to Congress and the FISA court.

The post Trump Announces New Intelligence Advisory Board – and Devin Nunes will Serve as Chairman appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Elon Musk and Rep. Jamie Raskin who is panicked with Elon’s work rooting out waste and fraud.

Democrats continued their meltdown on Tuesday.

Democrat lawmakers are having such a difficult time with Elon Musk and Donald Trump rooting out waste, fraud and communism in the halls of the US Capitol.

On Tuesday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) called for the impeachment of Elon Musk, who is not an elected official.

Democrats are so scared of what Elon is yet to find that they want to “impeach” him.

Rep. Jamie Raskin: A guy who is not even eligible to run for president is acting as president. A guy who would be impeached immediately because he is taking billions of dollars in foreign government emoluments from all over the world. And some people have been actually talking about impeaching President Elon Musk right now on the theory that he’s usurped the policies of the president.

What lunatics. Have you ever seen Democrats in such excruciating agony and worry?

What are they so afraid of?

WATCH: Democrats are planning on impeaching @elonmusk.

How is that even possible? pic.twitter.com/C0uFTTba0B

— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) February 11, 2025

The post Democrats Are Losing It… Rep. Raskin Calls For Impeachment of Elon Musk Who Is NOT in Elected Office (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Joe Rogan recently suggested that Democrats are going to keep shedding people because they are not course-correcting at all.

This is absolutely right. Since the 2024 election, Democrats have not paused for a single minute to consider why so many voters have fled their party. They have not expended an ounce of energy trying to figure out where they went wrong and what they need to change in order to get back in tune with voters.

It’s almost like they’re incapable of doing so, because that would require them to admit that they were wrong and Donald Trump was right. They just can’t do it and Rogan says this is going to lead them off a cliff.

Partial transcript via Real Clear Politics:

JOE ROGAN: They’re going to keep shedding people. They’re not going to correct course. This is a buffalo drop. Do you know those buffalo jumps? No. You know what? The Native Americans used to… One of the ways to hunt Buffalo was to get them to the edge of a cliff and just run at them, and they just fall off the other edge of the cliff. Then people are waiting on the bottom, and they butcher them and eat them. We’re in that pile of buffalo.

BRIDGET PHETASY: We’re all being run off the cliff.

JOE ROGAN: Yeah. They’re going to go off the cliff. There’s no way they’re not. They’re not course-correcting at all. They’re saying stupid stuff. It’s all nonsense.

Their understanding of social media and the dynamics that you set up by having completely state-controlled mainstream media where they only said the narratives that you guys wanted. They all said it in step, so you could watch different programs repeat the exact same words, the exact same phrases. We know they got talking points. We don’t trust you anymore. We don’t trust the New York Times. We don’t trust the Washington Post. We don’t trust CNN or any other MSNBC, where they’re all full with propaganda.

That’s why the internet rose. It’s not because there was some sort of a right-wing conspiracy and heavily funded. No, you guys suck. You’re not real people. Nobody wants to hang out with Brian Stelter.

Watch the clip below:

NEW: Joe Rogan rips into the Democratic Party and legacy media, warning they will keep losing supporters as they double down on ‘stupid sh*t’ and refuse to ‘course correct.’

“We were right about the general election. That red wave happened. The Democratic Party is going to keep… pic.twitter.com/9zaJ7GTKq2

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) February 10, 2025

When you boil this down, it’s not even a political issue, it’s an issue of common sense. Democrats don’t seem to have any and it could lead to the demise of their party.

The post Joe Rogan Says Democrats Are Going to Keep Losing People Because ‘They’re Not Course-Correcting at All’ (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Vance is an intellectual heavyweight, a politician-philosopher. Among his influences are the social doctrine of

The post J.D. Vance and Javier Milei: Two Contrasting Visions in the New Right. appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.