Month: July 2025

The Gateway Pundit Called This Back in 2018: The Obama Administration Ordered Foreign Spy Agencies to Spy on Candidate Donald Trump Back in 2015

Posted on by patriotsheart

Barack Obama bids President Trump a farewell after his Inauguration. We now know Obama was running a coup against Trump behind the scenes at the time. Trump had no idea what was about to hit him. – Wikicommons

The Gateway Pundit was the first to report back in 2018 that the Deep State was using foreigners to spy on then-candidate Trump in 2015 prior to the presidential election.  President Trump tweeted our report by Joe Hoft the following day and the fake news mainstream media immediately attacked him for promoting what they called a “conspiracy theory.”

We later discovered more evidence in 2020 that we were 100% correct in our initial reporting.

President Trump responded to our report at the time.

Joe Hoft reported on this development at the time.  In June of 2018 The Gateway Pundit posted an article identifying unredacted words in previously redacted texts between corrupt cops Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two individuals supposedly having an affair and key players at the top of the FBI involved in spying on candidate and then President Trump.

The discovery came from an individual on Twitter who was later removed from the platform, named Nick Falco, who identified a word uncovered in a Senate text that the corrupt DOJ previously redacted.

In our 2018 post, we noted that hidden in the information released by the Senate at that time were unredacted Strzok–Page texts that revealed that the FBI initiated actions to insert multiple spies in the Trump campaign in December 2015.

According to far left LA Times, Comey stated in March of 2017 under oath that the FBI investigation into the Trump – Russia scandal started in July 2016.

We knew then without a doubt that Comey lied about this.

Intelligence expert Tony Shaffer retweeted Falco’s tweet:

 

Falco’s tweet stated that the texts released from corrupt FBI investigator Peter Strzok to corrupt FBI attorney Lisa Page state the following :

BOMBSHELL- From DECEMBER 2015–The word LURES is redacted by FBI but not OIG; OCONUS LURES; OCONUS= Outside Contiguous US LURES= In this context LURES = SPIES – multiple – Is this an admission that the FBI wanted to run a baited Sting Op using foreign agents against Trump?”

Joe Hoft at The Gateway Pundit provided additional information showing that Obama’s spy, Stefan Halper, was awarded a contract in September of 2015.

We also pointed out that the problem with Obama spying on Trump before July 2016 is that it was against FBI rules and contradicted public statements:

Retired assistant FBI director for intelligence Kevin Brock also has questions. Brock supervised an agency update to their longstanding bureau rules governing the use of sources while working under then-director Robert Mueller. These rules prohibit the FBI from directing a human source to perform espionage on an American until a formal investigation has been opened – paperwork and all.

Brock sees oddities in how the Russia case began. “These types of investigations aren’t normally run by assistant directors and deputy directors at headquarters,” he told me. “All that happens normally in a field office, but that isn’t the case here and so it becomes a red flag. Congress would have legitimate oversight interests in the conditions and timing of the targeting of a confidential human source against a U.S. person.” -The Hill

The problem with Comey lying about the start date of the Trump counterintelligence campaign before Congress is that it is against the law.

President Trump tweeted out a follow up to our post the next day undoubtedly referring to our report:

The mainstream media was not interested in this unprecedented and illegal act by the Barack Obama administration. They were interested in accusing President Trump of tweeting a conspiracy story.   The fake news media denied the fact that spying on candidate Trump occurred despite evidence showing took place and then slammed the President and the Gateway Pundit for posting the tweets from Nick Falco.

To this day Wikipedia (which supports crazy far-left and dishonest positions in anything related to President Trump) calls this work, a conspiracy and “Spygate” a conspiracy.

Wikipedia calls the above story a conspiracy and the Gateway Pundit a conspiracy media outlet. However, they never called CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, The New York Times, Washington Post, and the many other far-left sites conspiracy outlets for pushing the Trump – Russia collusion for over eight years now!

The liberal media and Wikipedia omitted the facts. For example, they state that the texts were released previously, yes they were but, THEY WERE REDACTED. Wikipedia is far-left when it comes to US politics!

US Intelligence and the Justice Department, including the FBI, were indeed spying on candidate Trump in 2015.

We now know, for instance, that corrupt DOJ attorney and number four at the DOJ, Bruce Ohr, set aside time to meet with Christopher Steele in his calendar in early October of 2015. Steele is the alleged author of the fake Steele dossier used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, transition team and Presidency. Ohr’s calendar shows this meeting :

Based on his calendar and his wife Nellie’s testimony, we know that Bruce Ohr lied in front of Congress. Ohr lied about Nellie’s start date with Fusion GPS. The demoted and disgraced DOJ attorney Bruce Ohr stated in his testimony before Congress that Nellie started with Fusion GPS in November of 2015:

** You can read the rest of our previous report here.

Fast forward to February 2024 – Investigative reporter Michael Shellenberger reported that the CIA had foreign spy agencies spy on candidate Donald Trump including 26 members of his campaign.

From Shellenberger on X.

CIA Had Foreign Allies Spy On Trump Team, Triggering Russia Collusion Hoax, Sources Say

United States Intelligence Community targeted 26 Trump advisors for foreign spy agencies to “reverse target” and “bump”

by Shellenberger, matt taibbi, and alex gutentag

John Durham, a special prosecutor for the Department of Justice (DOJ), concluded in his report that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) should never have opened its investigation of alleged collusion by then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and Russia in late July of 2016.

Now, multiple credible sources tell Public and Racket that the United States Intelligence Community (IC), including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), illegally mobilized foreign intelligence agencies to target Trump advisors long before the summer of 2016.

The new information fills many gaps in our understanding of the Russia collusion hoax and is supported by testimony already in the public record.

Until now, the official story has been that the FBI’s investigation began after Australian intelligence officials told US officials that a Trump aide had boasted to an Australian diplomat that Russia had damning material about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

In truth, the US IC asked the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance to surveil Trump’s associates and share the intelligence they acquired with US agencies, say sources close to a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HSPCI) investigation. The Five Eyes nations are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

After Public and Racket had been told that President Barack Obama’s CIA Director, John Brennan, had identified 26 Trump associates for the Five Eyes to target, a source confirmed that the IC had “identified [them] as people to ‘bump,’ or make contact with or manipulate. They were targets of our own IC and law enforcement — targets for collection and misinformation.”

Unknown details about the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign and raw intelligence related to the IC’s surveillance of the Trump campaign are in a 10-inch binder that Trump ordered to be declassified at the very end of his term, sources told Public and Racket.

If the top-secret documents exist proving these charges, they are potentially proof that multiple US intelligence officials broke laws against spying and election interference.

CNN, Politico, The Guardian, and others reported in 2017 that the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the UK’s equivalent of the National Security Agency (NSA), was the “principal whistleblower” in the investigation into the alleged ties between Trump and the Russian government.

“GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious ‘interactions’ between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence” wrote a team of reporters for The Guardian in April 2017.

This intelligence sharing was supposedly just the result of “incidental collection.” Reported The Guardian, “It is understood that GCHQ was at no point carrying out a targeted operation against Trump or his team or proactively seeking information. The alleged conversations were picked up by chance as part of routine surveillance of Russian intelligence assets.”

But now, sources say the GCHQ’s version of events is false. Instead, the US IC asked its foreign allies to target 26 members of Trump’s team, possibly to justify the FBI’s investigation.

“They were making contacts and bumping Trump people going back to March 2016,” a source close to the investigation said. “They were sending people around the UK, Australia, Italy — the Mossad in Italy. The MI6 was working at an intelligence school they had set up.”

The IC, a source said, considered the 26 Trump campaign people identified to “bump” or “reverse target,” or manipulate through confidential human sources (CHSs), to be easy marks because of their relative inexperience.

Doing so was illegal, both because US law prohibits such intelligence gathering unless authorized by a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant and because the weaponization of the IC for political purposes constitutes election interference.

Brennan, former President Barack Obama, under whom he served, and the CIA did not respond to requests by Public and Racket for comment. The Justice Department also declined to comment. But, the FBI and GCHQ did respond.

“The allegations that GCHQ was asked to conduct ‘wire tapping’ against the then president-elect are nonsense,” said a GCHQ spokesperson. “They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.”

However, in our email presenting the claims to GCHQ, we did not refer to “wiretapping” but rather to its UK spy agency’s broader alleged involvement in the scheme.

Said the FBI, “The conduct in 2016 and 2017 that [Justice Department] Special Counsel [John] Durham examined was the reason that current FBI leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time. Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented.”

But the new information provided by our sources should significantly alter the public’s understanding of how the US IC, including the FBI and CIA, began their illegal investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia…

Here is the tweet.

FBI started spying on the Trump campaign after foreign governments “by chance” discovered evidence that his advisors were colluding with the Russians, the government says. But now, multiple credible sources tell us that the CIA asked foreign allies to spy on 26 Trump associates. pic.twitter.com/YeJhZBSEVq

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) February 13, 2024

So will Barack Obama ever be held accountable for this dastardly and likely criminal act?

The post The Gateway Pundit Called This Back in 2018: The Obama Administration Ordered Foreign Spy Agencies to Spy on Candidate Donald Trump Back in 2015 appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

‘Golf Force One’: Armored Golf Cart Seen as President Trump Plays Course in Scotland

Posted on by patriotsheart

An armored golf cart was seen Saturday as President Donald Trump played a round of golf at his property in Turnberry, Scotland, where he is combining a weekend trip visiting his Scottish properties with (successfully) conducting high stakes diplomacy on trade and other issues. After concluding a trade deal with the European union at Turnberry on Sunday, Trump is scheduled to hold a meeting there with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday before heading to his property in Aberdeen.

Last September, Trump was the target of an alleged assassination attempt by Ryan Routh while he was playing golf at his course in West Palm Beach, Florida.

A convoy of golf carts at the Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland, UK on Sunday, July 27, 2025. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will meet President Donald Trump on Sunday in a bid to reach a trade agreement ahead of Friday’s deadline, at which point 30% tariffs on the bloc’s exports to the US are otherwise due to kick in. Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Closer view posted by the Daily Star:

Excerpt from the New York Post:

President Trump’s security team has debuted what appears to be a heavily armored golf cart 10 months after a would-be assassin aimed an SKS-style rifle toward him at his West Palm Beach tee resort.

As the president played at the Trump Turnberry course in South Ayrshire, Scotland, this weekend, an imposing, apparently heavily fortified black vehicle followed close behind — with security experts saying it bears all the hallmarks of an armor-reinforced golf cart in the mold of Trump’s official limo, a k a “The Beast.”

Trump drove a standard white golf cart as he played, but the bulky silhouette of the latest addition to his security fleet — which appears to be a modified Polaris Ranger XP — stood out like a sore thumb on the course.

“Just looking at the front windscreen, that looks armored,” said Gary Relf, director of Armoured Car Services, to The Telegraph.

More from the Telegraph, which broke the story (excerpt):

Gary Relf, director of Armoured Car Services, said: “Just looking at the front windscreen, that looks armoured. I’m sitting in an armoured vehicle now. We build armoured vehicles. That does look armoured to me.”

Mr Relf, a former traffic police officer who runs a company providing protective vehicles to wealthy individuals, heads of state and religious leaders, said it could be difficult to spot so-called “auto-armour”, but black banding across a windscreen was usually a giveaway.

“When we armour a vehicle, we take every kind of technical element out, the roof, the seats, the floor, the carpet, and then we put the armouring in, and we replace it all afterwards, so you might never know.

“But the thing that gives it away is the front windscreen.”

As with other armoured vehicles, Mr Trump’s reinforced golf buggy’s windscreen features a black band around it.

Trump was seen driving a regular looking cart, with the armored cart in the pack of carts following him on the course along with a host of other security precautions:

Family view of Trump golfing Saturday at Turnberry.

The post ‘Golf Force One’: Armored Golf Cart Seen as President Trump Plays Course in Scotland appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

As Trump Reaches Historic EU Trade Deal – His Administration Sends Off Officials to Malaysia to Broker Peace between Thailand and Cambodia

Posted on by patriotsheart

GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER.

President Trump shakes hands with EU Leader Ursula von der Leyen after agreeing to their historic trade deal. White House Video screengrab

Earlier today, President Trump announced the United States had reached a historic trade deal with the European Union.

Under the terms of the deal, the EU has agreed to buy $750 billion worth of energy from the US.

Additionally, the EU will make $600 billion in investments in the US and will purchase hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment.

European goods coming into the U.S. will have a 15% tariff, the EU will put 0% tariffs on U.S. goods.

This was the latest win for President Trump and America, brokered by the president and his team of experts.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cheered the news.

While the US President was hard at work in Scotland, the Trump Administration sent off officials to Malaysia to help broker peace between Thailand and Cambodia.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio made the announcement earlier today.

SOS Marco Rubio: “Both POTUS and I remain engaged with our respective counterparts for each country and are monitoring the situation very closely. We want this conflict to end as soon as possible.”

DOGEai also cheered the news:

This is how real leadership works—applying maximum pressure to force peace. The admin’s dual focus on brokering ceasefire talks while securing EU trade terms proves strategic leverage beats empty diplomacy. Tariff threats flipped the script: Thailand and Cambodia faced economic consequences for prolonging conflict, pushing them to negotiate.

Rubio’s hands-on involvement underscores the admin’s commitment to ending wasteful foreign entanglements while advancing U.S. trade dominance. Chaos was the catalyst; results are the payoff.

Now watch as this model reshapes global conflicts—no more endless wars, just decisive deals that put America first.

The post As Trump Reaches Historic EU Trade Deal – His Administration Sends Off Officials to Malaysia to Broker Peace between Thailand and Cambodia appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Irma Hernández, 62-Year-Old Teacher and Taxi Driver, Kidnapped and Murdered After Refusing to Pay Extortion to Cartel in Veracruz

Posted on by patriotsheart

This is a Gateway Hispanic article.

The post Irma Hernández, 62-Year-Old Teacher and Taxi Driver, Kidnapped and Murdered After Refusing to Pay Extortion to Cartel in Veracruz appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A Grand Bargain on Foreign Aid?

Posted on by patriotsheart
Politics

A Grand Bargain on Foreign Aid?

Perhaps Democrats could swap pro-growth policies for foreign aid.

USAid Leaders Put On Leave After Conflict With Department Of Government Efficiency Workers

The $9 billion Republican rescission bill is now law, and foreign aid is getting much of the chop. This turn of events highlights a fundamental weakness in the pro–foreign aid constituency: The collapse of bipartisan support for assistance, at least as it’s currently conducted by the federal government. 

While the cuts to the lightning-rod PEPFAR program were canceled, other cuts will happen—a total of $9 billion. Senate Republicans tweeted a “greatest hits” list of zero-outs, including “$300,000 to hold a pride parade in Lesotho,” “$500,000 for a gender equality and empowerment hub,” and “$4.4 million for the ‘Melanesian Youth Climate Corps.’” 

Is this adversarial cherry-picking? Sure it is. And it must also be said that the cuts, while too big in the view of some, are small in the scheme of things. As Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said, “What we are talking about is one-tenth of one percent of all federal spending . . . but it’s a step in the right direction.” To put the data another way, 99.9 percent of federal spending was deemed to be more popular (or untouchable) than foreign aid and other targets the Republican majority loves to hate, PBS and NPR. 

In fact, the rescission counts as a triumph for the conservative critique of “woke” aid. The Heritage Foundation, still leading GOP policy formulation after all these years, has long been pounding away (here, here, and here).  

Furthermore, the Heritage-hubbed Project 2025 declared of the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development, “The Biden Administration has deformed the agency by treating it as a global platform to pursue overseas a divisive political and cultural agenda that promotes abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systemic racism.”  

This intellectual fuel pile chain-reactioned in Donald Trump’s second presidency. Immediately upon taking office, 47 issued an Executive Order declaring that “the United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values.” 

Guided by that ukase, Team Trump DOGE-d or otherwise kiboshed not only USAID, but also the U.S. Institute of Peace and various smaller offices. Additionally, it pulled out of the World Health Organization and terminated many other international agreements and understandings. 

Yes, it’s possible that court orders will undo some of these RIFs. Yet no judge is going to undo the influence of Trump’s point man on cutting, Russ Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget. Even after DOGE Musked out, Vought & Co. have been planning not only more rescissions, but also freezes, impoundments, and whatever other stratagems were dreamed up in the Project 2025 idea lab.  

Notably, if the federal government shuts down again—there have been 20 “funding gaps” in the last half century, and in this divisive time it’s easy to foresee a 21st soon enough—Vought would be able to use his insider perch to wield both his scalpel and his cleaver. So while past shutdowns have usually worked against Republicans, a new one would make Vought’s day. 

Of course, the Democrats, who have been solidly opposed to all these moves, will be back in charge eventually. No doubt there are already tuning up their anti-Vought bot, eyeing rescissions of the rescissions.  

But it’s also likely the Democrats will have a hard time putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. Why? Because the politico-media environment has changed much. For instance, PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief, was created by George W. Bush in 2003. Back then, 43 was guided by his unique combination of “wars of choice” plus “compassionate conservatism.” And for a while, Republicans—and many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Biden—loved it, supporting both the Iraq War and PEPFAR. As Bush 43 secretary of state Condoleezza Rice concedes with a sigh, there’s no going back to those days. 

Moreover, in those days, the mainstream media were much more influential; many Republicans would slaver to get a nice mention in, say, the New York Times. For Bush, battered as he was by Iraq (American soldiers had it worse), PEPFAR paid off (One Times headline from 2008: “In Global Battle on AIDS, Bush Creates Legacy”). That’s a legacy Bush has embraced (what else does he have?). Just this year, 43 teamed up with 44, Barack Obama, to denounce Republican plans to cut PEPFAR.  

Yet the world is different now; old bipartisan halos may provide some cover—PEPFAR survived the rescission unscathed—but they don’t speak to any genuine commitment among active politicians about cross-party comity. Indeed, the Times reports that Trump officials still wish to “sharply curtail or end” the program, as part of their long twilight struggle against many kinds of welfarist spending. 

In his first presidential campaign, Trump trashed Bush 43, Jeb Bush, and even Bush 41—and the feelings have long been mutual. So don’t expect any scion of the once-dynasty to be speaking any time soon to a Republican National Convention. So good bye, aid-on-your-sleeve Bush-style compassionate conservatism.  

During the same two decades, the MSM, too, have shriveled. The Times is still powerful, and yet its influence is mostly on the left half of the country; the right half now looks elsewhere for news and exhortation.   

Not surprisingly, there’s been a corresponding slide in conservative and Republican support for the “rules-based international order,” which the right takes as code for globalism—or, as a Trump Pentagon spokeswoman puts it, “the evil of globalism.” 

So even when the Democrats get back in charge, they won’t have much support from America First Republicans. And history shows that at least a modicum of bipartisanship is key to successful long-term endeavors. Absent an across-the-aisle concord on aid, the likely outcome is a see-saw, as supply chains are snapped up and down by partisan gusts.

For many sincere conservatives, this scenario is painful to contemplate. After all, charity is not a left-wing idea—it’s a biblical idea. Long before anyone heard of the Frankfurt School, Christians were comforting the afflicted, including in faraway lands.  

Yet in all those biblical preachings on almsgiving, there’s nothing about funding sexual liberation or transgenderism—and that’s the crux of the current aid crisis. Christians (and a good many others) who are called to feed the hungry and clothe the naked are not all left-wing—just the opposite, often. But in the eyes of one of the two major parties, the GOP, the foreign-aid establishment has gone woke—and with just a handful of exceptions, no GOPer wants to vote to fund that.  

Thus the question for the future of U.S. government-run aid: Can the system be changed, or at least somewhat reformed? The viability of foreign aid as a popular national project depends on an affirmative answer.  

Of course, there are plenty of other right-coded arguments for foreign aid, including the realpolitik gaining of influence in foreign countries and the opening up of markets for U.S. exports. 

Nevertheless, as the recent voting shows, all these arguments—whether advanced by Christians or by the Chamber of Commerce—are having less impact.  

So perhaps the pro-foreign aid constituencies, across the spectrum, will see the value of a rethink. They need a stronger, broader, political platform—and that will take no small reassessment. 

There’s a paradox at the heart of the contemporary foreign aid establishment: The people who push hard to boost the Third World are the same ones who seek to restrain the First World. The left is expansionary abroad and contractionary at home. (By contrast, the right is contractionary abroad and expansionary at home—more on that later.)  

The Trump administration rightly touts strong capital expenditure numbers and zooming small businesses optimism as evidence that Main Street is doing even better than Wall Street—the latter being heavily influenced by the foreign trade that Team Trump seeks to supplant with domestic production. 

For the most part, liberals will deny that they are anti-growth. Yet to make their points on growth, they typically insert modifiers, such as “smart,” or “sustainable”—or most loaded of all, “equitable”— that actually underscore their ambivalence about wealth creation. In the words of contrarian Democrat Ruy Teixeira, “Progressives now prize goals like fighting climate change, procedural justice, and protecting identity groups above prosperity.” 

At the same time, those further to the left—but still Democratic voters, who can win important primaries—make no bones about being anti-growth. And as for the hardcore greens, fuhgeddaboutit. Indeed, it seems fair to say that for those preoccupied with carbon dioxide molecules, the needs of the planet’s dispossessed are a lower priority—much lower. 

Optics and opinions aside, the record is clear enough: The Biden administration and almost all Democrats in Congress consistently opposed development of carbon-fuel energy and other natural resources. Everything was at least somewhat subordinated to concerns about climate change, which Joe Biden described as an “existential threat” too many times to count. (For those who really believe that the greatest danger to the world is climate change, of course GDP matters less.)  

For a while, Democrats insisted that solar and wind energy would fill up all the shortfalls and shore up prosperity. Yet now we see that was just magical thinking. Moreover, it was magical to think that construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline could be closed down—as the Biden administration did in 2021—and that the jolted workers would then pivot to good new careers as computer coders. (It was also magical to think that those blue collars wouldn’t retaliate by voting Republican.) 

To be sure, these days, the fastest growth is coming from digital technology, most of that clustered in blue dots near top universities. These blue zones regard themselves as not only progressive, but clean.  

Yet by now we’ve figured out that the highest of high tech, AI, is an energy hog. Indeed, even green tech is heavily dependent on rare earths. Not only do the electrons have to come from somewhere, but so does the scandium, terbium, yttrium, etc. 

Not so long ago, liberals and greens could comfort themselves by thinking that all this dirty-industrial work was being done in faraway China. (That some of it was also coming from slave-pits in Africa was not so comforting.) But now that the PRC is decoupling from the U.S., even oh-so-green Apple is realizing that it needs to mine and refine nearby.

Ah, but what of the so-called Abundance Democrats? Those shibboleth-smashing opponents of red tape and NIMBYism? Aren’t they a pro-growth tonic for their party? As Michael Woronoff observed acidly in Commentary, the Abundance Dems do, indeed, seek to smash the small idols of anti-growth—but only to make more room in the temple for the mega-idol of anti-growth, climate change.

To be blunt about it: Climate change is the uber-deity of economic contraction. 

We see this in Europe, which has instantiated Net Zero into wealth-destroying holy writ. In the words of the Dane Bjorn Lomborg, the European Union “has consistently prioritized carbon cuts and ever more expensive energy, often through less reliable wind and solar power. This climate crusade is a masterclass in self-sabotage, chaining its economy to ruinous policies while preaching moral superiority.” No wonder even the poorest U.S. states are now richer than European countries, and that continental corporations are now just shadows of their American rivals. 

We can say that the Europeans have the right to follow their bliss their way, but we can also observe that the green-palsied EU is cutting back on foreign aid. Of course it is—because it’s no longer rich. 

Adjacent to the EU is the United Kingdom, where green-red czar Ed Miliband dictated, magically, that cloudy England would be a solar superpower. Physics got in the way, of course, so the UK has the highest electricity prices in Europe. Indeed, economic growth has been so depressed that the left-wing government has slashed its foreign aid budget by 40 percent. That’s what happens to the recipient poor when the giving country, too, goes poor.  

The reaction to this decline has been, well, reactionary, with still more backlash to come. Nigel Farage’s Reform Party is now leading in British public opinion. If he, or a like-minded figure—including a convert from the wet Toryism that once spearheaded the economic dégringolade of Net Zero—wins the next national election, foreign aid will be redirected to thwarting, even evicting, foreigners. 

Yet even after these defeats, liberalism is still braided with eco-gloomism, that paradoxical bundling of hoped-for generosity and real-world austerity. For example, a look at the website of Global Citizen—a large NGO with its headquarters in Manhattan and six satellite offices around the world—shows two tandem priorities: “Defeat Poverty” and “Defend the Planet,” the latter which highlights, of course, “the climate crisis.”

The left is free to be what it wants to be. And if that means prioritizing slower growth, so be it. Yet the right is just as free to be itself, including its go-go economic vanguard.   

So leftists should understand that if ordinary voters are presented with a choice, slow-growth foreign-aiders, on one side, and faster-growth non-foreign-aiders, on the other, vox populi is foregone.  

It’s simple, really: If the overall pie is smaller, the slice going to the global poor will be smaller. But is there another way? A larger pie, more widely shared? Perhaps, but nobody’s baking it. A better recipe is needed. 

A new grand bargain for foreign aid could be this: The left unbundles, and unburdens itself from austerity and agrees to help unleash more prosperity. In return, as its part of the deal, the right takes most of the money and runs—leaving behind an agreed-upon amount for foreign aid. So both domestic sides, left and right, score a win, and the international poor, too, share in the winning. So it’s actually a win-win-win. 

The ideal would be the creation of a dedicated—the two-dollar word is hypothecated—fund that guarantees a steady stream of aid.  

History shows that these sorts of funds can be apolitical: For a century-and-a-half, it’s been a perfectly natural thing that the University of Texas system has been funded, in part, by resources from set-aside lands, including, of course, oil. Similarly, the National Park Service Historic Preservation Trust Fund is endowed by oil revenues. And the Alaska Permanent Fund delivers a carbon-fuel dividend to each resident. The amount fluctuates with prices, but over the last five years, the dividend has averaged $1,680 per annum. At the same time, the Fund’s assets exceed $83 billion, which works out to more than $112,000 per Alaskan.  

These disparate plush funds are the face of abundance. Politically, they are all winners, such that nobody in politics, in either party, talks about messing with them. In other words, they enjoy a sanctity that makes it easy for authorities to dole out money as they see fit—so long as everyone, or every interest, gets a piece. 

Are there environmental concerns associated with these monies, and their sources? Of course. Yet Alaska, Texas, and the U.S. as a whole are perfectly habitable—that environmental mitigation is much improved is one of those stories the Malthusians don’t want people to know about.  

In fact, we could drill, baby, drill—and dig, baby, dig—and have a lot more such public funds. Then the political system could figure out where the money should go. If pro-foreign aid groups are in the room, helping to achieve producerist plenty, they’ll get their share of the goodies. “Everyone fat and happy” is another way of saying, “sustainability.”  

By contrast, if foreign-aid constituencies stick with their current allies, the greens, they’ll be left out in the cold limbo of austerityland, quite possibly to be rescissioned over and over again. As they say in politics, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. 

Creative bargaining on abundance—divvying up the growth dividend—could well lead to fiscal outcomes outside the normal protocols of taxing and spending. How much is it worth to drillers to be able to drill in X? How much is it worth to diggers to dig in Y? Or to build on Z? These questions could be put to auction, just as Uncle Sam has auctioned off radio spectrum—a process that has netted the feds $100 billion, with more money coming. 

Okay, now for the possible objections.

The current left, including the Democratic Party, might not be ready for this much agonizing reappraisal—even if it’s happened before. That is, the greens, who loom so large in both donation and ideation, will fight a true abundance agenda. So the Democrats will have to make a choice. Which side are they on: the masses, or the molecules?  

Speaking of the masses, one famous leader spoke well for them—that would be Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor for nearly four decades. When asked what the workers wanted, he answered, with one simple and non-ideological word: “More.” Out of such pragmatic thinking, there’s plenty of hope for a new compact. 

Yet the current right, including the Republican Party, also might shrink from the brink. After all, more money for foreign aid means more money for NGOs. Without minimizing moral concerns, we can assert: Every dealmaking session is an opportunity to set terms, understanding that bargaining is not surrendering—by either side. In the meantime, others on right might be thinking: If deal-making Democrats were no longer blocking development, but instead cheering it on, how much is that worth? Such calculating is the beginning of dealing. 

A new report from the Trump White House Council of Economic Advisers reminds us that both sides have cards to play. The report finds that extra energy production alone could add two points to GDP by 2035—but only if that energy unleashing is accompanied by continued deregulation. That caveat underscores the importance of the report’s decade-long timeline, which includes two presidential elections. 

The conclusion is clear: For maximum growth, as well as maximum profitability, businesspeople and entrepreneurs need to be assured that no hostile regime will re-regulate, thereby stranding the investment. The best assurance of a loose leash comes from a reciprocal political deal, inked by both parties, and boosted by continued good faith. 

As political players consider their stance on growth and the distribution of its benefits, the best advice is borrowed from statecraft: We don’t have permanent allies, we have permanent interests. 

Yet in the short term, there’s a variable who is, well, yuge.

No doubt some Ultra-MAGA boasts a bracelet with the letters: WWTD (What Would Trump Do?). This author’s answer—sketched out here at TAC well before the election—is that Trump would seize the opportunity to do a multi-trillion-dollar beauty of a deal.

Yes, of course, Trump is America First, and has been quoted—quotes never confirmed—saying that some Third World counties are “sh*tholes.”   

Yet words are just words. What really matters are deals, including, perhaps, an agreement that yields him the coveted Nobel Peace Prize. (Note to the Norwegians and the rest of NATO: The quicker Trump gets his Nobel, the nicer he will be, even if his own base finds such behavior boring.) 

For sure, there’s plenty of plenty to deal with—enough to pay for a world-historical win-win. 

In 2023, eerily anticipating Trump, Science magazine described “a golden age for economic geology.” That is, everywhere prospectors look, there’s one rich discovery after another. Consider lithium. Just in the last year, seekers have found an estimated $540 billion of lithium in California, $800 billion in Arkansas, and $1.5 trillion in Oregon. And all that’s on top of earlier recent lithium discoveries in Florida, Maine, and Wisconsin. 

Okay, maybe lithium is too green for some tastes. Similar tales could be told about other minerals—all of them, in fact. 

Why is this so? The answer goes back to the origin of the Earth, formed 4.5 billion years ago by the coalescing of gases, dust particles, and asteroids surrounding the Sun. All that galactic stuff, now congealed, contains literally every element known in the universe—it all having been sprayed about, even longer ago, by the Big Bang. 

So that’s why natural resources are scattered all over the Earth, and, of course, within Earth. Our planet’s diameter is nearly 8,000 miles, with a mass of six sextillion tons (21 zeros). Every ton of this globe has something of value in it, from lead to gold to everything else. 

Yet upon this planetary plethora, no mine has ever gone deeper than 2.5 miles. In the most literal sense, we’ve only scratched the surface. So if we could—and we will, especially if there’s a big enough X-Prize—figure out how to mine deeper, we’d find vastly more of everything. 

Yes, the Malthusians are that wrong—we’re not running out of anything. 

We could be that rich, and we could share that much more with the world. Of course, the world, too, including the Third World, could join in on this abundance. America could share its technological knowhow, and other countries, too, including poor ones, could dig deeper and get richer.  

Of course, the proper sharing of wealth-producing capacity would require considerable forethought, to make sure that it reaches the truly needy, not just local elites. So that would necessitate new thinking on politics, and geopolitics, as well as technology. Those controversies can be taken up in another time.  

Yet in the meantime, there’s much we Americans can do: We could agree to do a better job of producing and sharing our own wealth. If so, as part of the agreement we could not only be wealthier ourselves, but have lots of money left over for good causes, including aiding the world’s poor.  

And if Trump were to be the humanitarian dealmaker? Would that be too ironic for words? Another pro-growth Republican, Ronald Reagan, had the right answer: “There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.” 

Amen. 

The post A Grand Bargain on Foreign Aid? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Japan Turns Inward

Posted on by patriotsheart
Foreign Affairs

Japan Turns Inward

Nativist sentiment is on the rise in the Land of the Rising Sun.

Tourists,Visiting,Gion,,Old,Traditional,Area,In,Kyoto,,Japan,On

When in doubt, blame the foreigners. Such is the case in Japan, undergoing a bout of what we’d in the U.S. call “yellow supremacy.” But is it more than an election season ploy to wind up a crowd? Is it a movement or a protest vote?

From its earliest contact with foreigners as dramatized in Shogun, it has been love-hate superimposed on classic xenophobia. During my years in Japan, I remember sitting embarrassed on a crowded train, jam-packed as only Japanese trains can be, with empty seats next to me. No one wanted to rub thighs with a foreigner. I watched taxis zoom past like I was a black man in New York trying to hail a cab uptown from 96th Street. At the same time, I cannot forget an elderly Japanese woman walking several blocks out of her way in the rain to ensure I made it to my destination when neither of us had the language skills fully to communicate directions. It is a strange place, Japan, usually benign and eccentric, albeit occasionally annoying.

But recent developments indicate perhaps a return to the racist side of Japan that saw the wholesale slaughter Christians centuries ago and the stampede through Nanjing killing Chinese, seeing them as not worthy even of conquest and enslavement. The country that gives us Pikachu has a dark side.

An upstart political party gained support in the recent Upper House elections in Japan by railing against a “silent invasion” of immigrants, pushing the government and more middle-of-the-road parties to tackle fears about foreigners as it dragged into the mainstream rhetoric once confined to the political fringe. Birthed on YouTube during the pandemic, where it spread conspiracy theories about vaccinations, the party, Sanseito, recently widened its appeal with a “Japanese First” campaign. They are not alone. Naoki Hyakuta, leader of the minor opposition Conservative Party of Japan, said that foreigners “disrespect Japanese culture, ignore the rules, assault Japanese people, and steal their belongings.” NHK Party leader Takashi Tachibana described black people and people of Islamic background as “scary.” A Komeito party candidate stated, “We’ll deport people staying illegally. We’ll say no to the abuse and misuse of refugee applications.”

Sanseito is the biggest player in yellow supremacy. It is headed by Sohei Kamiya, a young politician who models himself after Donald Trump in style and message. Kamiya faced a minor backlash for branding gender equality policies a mistake, as they encourage women to work and keep them from having children. His broader success, however, left many in Japan wondering whether their country is seeing the angry populism that has visited the United States and other democracies. His core message is Japan has put the interests of foreigners over those of its own people.

The message appeals to voters, especially males, frustrated with a weak economy that has lured tourists in record numbers, further driving up prices Japanese can ill-afford. Foreign-born residents in Japan hit a record of about 3.8 million last year. Although that is only three percent of the total population, a tiny fraction compared to the numbers in the U.S., in a homogenous Japan with no sentimental history of immigration to fall back on, it is a lot.

As immigration emerged as a top election issue as driven by Sanseito, a desperate Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba unveiled a new Hail-Mary government taskforce made up of 78 employees, including officials from the Cabinet Office, the Justice Ministry, and other bodies to fight “crimes and disorderly conduct” by foreign nationals as his mainstream party promised to pursue a goal of “zero illegal foreigners.” The goal is wholly unrealistic; the sentiment, however, appeals to a population looking for scapegoats for its failing economy (the proportion of people in Japan who think living conditions are more comfortable than a year ago fell to the lowest level in over 15 years) and changing social mores.

The new task force, formally assuming the pseudo-Orwellian name of Office for the Promotion of a Society of Harmonious Coexistence with Foreign Nationals, will coordinate policies for foreigners. Among the areas it will cover are immigration, land acquisition, and unpaid social insurance. The latter particularly irks many Japanese, who religiously pay into a national health insurance program that basically results in minimum out-of-pocket costs for care, even into old age. Foreigners outside the payment system pay either the highly subsidized rates or simply skip out on large bills. In response, the government said last month it plans to ban tourists and foreign residents with unpaid medical bills from getting a visa or returning to the country. It is unclear how much of a shortfall this change actually addresses, but it is the changing attitude that matters most to the public.

Foreigners are very visible in Japan; they look different, talk loudly, and don’t always follow strict Japanese rules of etiquette. As tourism grows, many travelers have seen Tokyo and Osaka and are now branching out into the countryside in search of new experiences, driven by social media. The influx irritates local residents, whose lives have been disrupted by tourists flocking to their neighborhoods. In response, some tourist sites now have two prices for entry; the one for foreigners is notably higher than the Japanese price. Local officials for a while blocked an Instagram-famous view of Mount Fuji from a convenience store parking lot due to a surge in residents’ complaints of overcrowding. One hot spring resort area warned against low water levels and shut down entry early after foreign visitors demanded private baths, shy about the Japanese communal style. Played as funny anecdotes online abroad, in Japan these rub against local concerns as headline stories.

Some Japanese also blame tourists for driving up prices and contributing to shortages of rice. Protecting nationally grown rice is the third rail of all Japanese politics, and suggestions the current shortages and high prices have anything to do with tourists (they likely do not) are designed to stir up animosity. Coupled with the Trump tariffs, which target agricultural goods like rice, these are fighting words akin to “No Irish Need Apply” signs in 19th century Manhattan. Crime is another issue used to stir up emotions, even though only 5.3 percent of those arrested in 2023 were foreigners.

The obvious solution is to shut the door to foreigners, as was done in the Sakoku period (Japan’s self-imposed policy of national isolation during the Edo period, 1603–1868.) This is unfortunately very costly. “As Japan faces the challenges of a declining birthrate and aging population, it is essential for us to incorporate the vitality of the international community, through the acceptance of a certain number of foreign workers and the expansion of inbound tourism, to ensure a smooth transition to a growth-oriented economy,” Ishiba said. But how?

When actual election results were tallied, Sanseito scored a healthy 14 seats, way up from its pre-election single seat and quite an achievement for a party that did not exist five years ago. Ishiba’s Liberal Democratic Party suffered a major defeat, with voters broadly shifting to more conservative parties, including Sanseito. Ishiba will likely form a coalition excluding Sanseito, but the trend in Japan is not going unnoticed—the mainstream Liberal Democratic Party also suffered an election defeat last year robbing it of a majority in the Lower House.

What’s left for Japan to sort out is whether this anti-foreign sentiment was mostly an election-year ruse, or an echo of history’s darker episodes. Many working-class people face stagnant wages and feel dissatisfaction about inequality, said one Japanese university professor. “They perceive that support is being prioritized for foreigners, and that major political parties are neglecting Japanese taxpayers like themselves,” he said. Culturally, these people may feel “this country will no longer be ours” as the number of foreigners in Japan increases.

The post Japan Turns Inward appeared first on The American Conservative.

How Much Slavery Is in Cali? GOP Probe Aims to Find Out After ICE Raid Uncovers Child Labor Abuse

Posted on by patriotsheart

Republican leaders in the House are investigating an Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid on two California cannabis farms from earlier this month after unaccompanied minors were discovered working as laborers there by federal agents.

The joint operation — carried out earlier this month by ICE and CBP officers — focused on two marijuana growing facilities.

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom originally commented on the raid and was heavily critical of the federal government. This led CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to break the news to him that they found 10 juveniles, eight of whom were alone.

The Daily Caller News Foundation first obtained letters sent by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, to the Department of Homeland Security — and the Department of Health and Human Services — about a congressional investigation into the matter.

“The discovery of these juveniles at a marijuana facility, and in the presence of at least one dangerous illegal alien previously convicted of child molestation, highlights the continuing consequences of the Biden-Harris Administration’s open-border policies,” Jordan wrote.

Jordan was joined by Rep. Tom McClintock, a Republican from California, who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement. Both lawmakers cited failures by the Biden administration as the reason for such negligence.

“The discovery of UACs [Unaccompanied Alien Children] at a California marijuana farm raises questions about [Office of Refugee Resettlement] ORR’s placement of UACs — particularly during the Biden-Harris Administration — and the sufficiency of sponsor vetting,” the lawmakers added. “Pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to conduct oversight of federal immigration policy and procedures.”

The Judiciary Committee is requesting more information from DHS and HHS about where the minors are being held, their case history, family background, and other details. They also want a response by Aug. 7, the DNCF reported.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the president of Glass House of Farms — the company that owns and operates the raided marijuana sites — has a history of donating large sums to Democrats.

Graham Farrar has given to the Santa Barbara County Democratic Central Committee’s federal PAC and to California Democratic Rep. Salud Carbajal. He also donated $10,000 to Newsom back in 2018, according to a report from the New York Post.

The company claimed it “never knowingly violated applicable hiring practices and does not and has never employed minors.”

Then what were the children doing there?

Democrats preach about how intolerant the federal government is toward illegals. Yet in the same breath they ask questions like, “Who’s going to clean your toilets? Who’s going to work in America’s hotels and farms?”

In a profanity-laced interview released on Monday, former President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, expressed that very sentiment, saying, “Am I going to be like all these Democrats say, ‘You have to talk about and realize that people are really upset about illegal immigration?’ F*** you. How do you think your hotel room gets cleaned?”

“How do you think you got food on your f***ing table?” he continued. “Who do you think washes your dishes? Who do you think does your f***ing garden?”

Is that all leftists see when they look at illegal aliens? A workforce for low-income jobs and a reliable long-term voter base?

They can’t claim to be the party of compassion while viewing illegals this way. They also can’t claim the moral high ground on the issue while turning a blind eye to child labor.

Republican lawmakers should keep shining a spotlight on this and keep the story alive.

It not only highlights the hypocrisy of the left, but shows how dangerous it is when children enter the country unaccompanied.

If the United States maintains a culture where we invite millions to enter the nation unvetted, children will get caught in the crossfire. Human trafficking, physical danger, sexual abuse — the list of consequences is endless.

Only by digging deeper and demanding answers can the country put a face to the darker side of illegal immigration.

There are cartels, coyotes, and couriers who will take advantage of illegals, then pass them off to Americans like Farrar. They make it across the border, but end up treated like slaves. Is that better than entering the country the right way and obtaining legal status?

It’s time for this to stop. Perhaps if people start going to prison, things will finally change.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post How Much Slavery Is in Cali? GOP Probe Aims to Find Out After ICE Raid Uncovers Child Labor Abuse appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Meet the Indian Slugger Liberals Insulted When They Forced the Cleveland Indians to Be Renamed

Posted on by patriotsheart

When the Cleveland Indians changed their name to the “Guardians” in 2021, it was supposed to be progress.

But for many Native Americans like me, it felt like something else entirely: being canceled.

On the Sunday of this past week, President Donald Trump stood up for us when he called on the team in Ohio to bring back its iconic name.

“Cleveland should do the same with the Cleveland Indians,” Trump wrote on Truth Social after calling for the Washington Redskins name to also be restored. “The Owner of the Cleveland Baseball Team, Matt Dolan, who is very political, has lost three Elections in a row because of that ridiculous name change. What he doesn’t understand is that if he changed the name back to the Cleveland Indians, he might actually win an Election.”

“Indians are being treated very unfairly,” Trump added. “MAKE INDIANS GREAT AGAIN (MIGA)!”

The original name wasn’t just a catchy title. It actually had meaning.

It was linked to Louis Sockalexis, a Native American outfielder who played for the then-Cleveland Spiders in the late 1890s.

Sockalexis, a member of the Penobscot Nation, was the first Native American widely recognized in professional baseball. In 1897, he hit .338 with an .845 OPS in 66 games, according to MLB.com.

A 1915 edition of The Plain Dealer newspaper remembered his legacy clearly:

“Many years ago there was an Indian named Sockalexis who was the star player of the Cleveland baseball club,” the article said. “Sockalexis so far outshone his teammates that he naturally came to be regarded as the whole team.”

The article added that “fans throughout the country began to call the Clevelanders the ‘Indians’” as “an honorable name.”

After star player Nap Lajoie left the team in 1915, “Indians” was chosen as the new name — widely seen as a nod to Sockalexis.

That same year, The Boston Herald also praised Sockalexis in coverage of the renaming.

He died in 1913, but his impact was still fresh in the minds of fans and sportswriters.

But after the 2020 summer of wokeness, the activists — mostly white, childless liberals — succeeded in scrubbing his name from the public eye.

The self-righteous bunch were only helping the American Indian, right? Not even close.

All they accomplished, aside from deleting Aunt Jemima, was erasing Sockalexis and insulting many, many modern Native Americans, such as this sports fan. We enjoyed being celebrated by American culture.

Sockalexis wasn’t a mascot. He was a sports pioneer.

And his story deserves to be remembered, not canceled.

If anyone had bothered to ask most of us Native Americans if we were offended by being celebrated in sports, we would have told them to kick rocks.

Instead, the coastal elites who power the progressive outrage machine spoke for us and canceled a legend.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Meet the Indian Slugger Liberals Insulted When They Forced the Cleveland Indians to Be Renamed appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

UK DYSTOPIA: British Police Forms ‘Elite Team’ to Monitor Social Media Searching for ‘Anti-migrant’ Posts, as Leftist Labour Government Braces for Citizens’ Revolt

Posted on by patriotsheart

UK will police citizens’ content on social media. / Credit: Geograph Britain and Ireland

The United Kingdom continues to devolve into a totalitarian state bent on destroying British society.

Under Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Britain accelerates its descent into a thought-policing state that cares more for ‘asylum seekers’ (a.k.a. illegal invaders) than it does for its own citizens-taxpayers.

As the fed-up British start to push back against the criminal elements among the migrants, we learn that the deranged leftist government is raising an ‘elite team of police officers’ to monitor social media for ‘anti-migrant sentiment’, as Starmer and his unpopular team brace themselves in fear of the people.

The Telegraph reported:

“Detectives will be drawn from forces across the country to take part in a new investigations unit that will flag up early signs of potential civil unrest.

The division, assembled by the Home Office, will aim to ‘maximize social media intelligence’ gathering after police forces were criticized over their response to last year’s riots.”

The detestable reasoning of the UK government is: there’s rampant migrant crime > people are driven into extremes and protest accordingly > police cracks down NOT on criminals, but on the protesting citizens.

It’s the end of Britain.

“On Saturday, crowds gathered in towns and cities including Norwich, Leeds and Bournemouth to demand action, with more protests planned for Sunday.”

Starmer walking the UK into a dystopian nightmare.

“Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, said: ‘This is the beginning of the state controlling free speech. It is sinister, dangerous and must be fought. Reform UK will do just that’.”

With the advent of the UK’s new ‘online safety laws’ (a.k.a. censorship), posts about the anti-migrant protests have already begun to be censored.

The new Orwellian unit will be called the National Internet Intelligence Investigations team.

Read more:

UK DYSTOPIA: Pro-Life Activist Convicted for Standing Outside Abortion Clinic – Case Criticized by VP Vance and US State Department – May Have ‘Diplomatic Implications’

The post UK DYSTOPIA: British Police Forms ‘Elite Team’ to Monitor Social Media Searching for ‘Anti-migrant’ Posts, as Leftist Labour Government Braces for Citizens’ Revolt appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Kentucky GOP Senate Candidate Nate Morris Calls Amnesty ‘Treason’ (Video)

Posted on by patriotsheart

Nate Morris/Image: Video screenshot/Fox News.

As reported at Breitbart, in an interview with Fox & Friends, Nate Morris, the Republican candidate for Senate in Kentucky, declared, “We are absolutely full […] and the amnesty that is being pushed now by Republicans and Democrats is treasonous … amnesty is treason.”

In addition to this declaration, Nate Morris also called for a complete immigration moratorium.

As the debate on how much legal immigration should be allowed rages, Nate Morris may become a leading voice.

Last month, Morris announced his Senate run seeking to “end the reign of Mitch McConnel.”

In a video launching his campaign, Morris vowed to “clean up Washington.”

He also declared, “It’s garbage day in Kentucky — and thanks to Mitch McConnell, things have gotten dirty. The Bluegrass State is sick and tired of cleaning up career politicians’ messes.”

Morris added that he intends to “take out the trash.”

Watch:

Morris, who describes himself as a Trump, America First conservative, is clearly a different kind of Republican than Mitch McConnell.

He is a change-maker, not a member of the establishment wing of the GOP. Morris is not a career politician but a businessman from the outside.

The post Kentucky GOP Senate Candidate Nate Morris Calls Amnesty ‘Treason’ (Video) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.