The leaders of the Democratic Party have absolutely no idea what to do. They are paralyzed, sitting immobile on the railroad tracks as the Trump Train rolls over them. Last night we saw just how bad it is live on television.
Trump spoke about women and girls raped, brutalized and murdered by illegal aliens. He introduced grieving mothers and family members and had them stand to accept the recognition of the assembled body of lawmakers and government officials.
The Democrats sat in stony silence, implicitly signaling their support for the mad Biden-era policies that have turned our cities into war zones and victimized law-abiding Americans.
Trump introduced a young woman severely and permanently injured in a volleyball game against a male opponent masquerading as female. She rose in quiet dignity clearly still impacted by the traumatic brain injury she suffered.
The Democrats sat in silence as everyone else rose. Some held up their ridiculous little black signs encouraging the American people to “resist”.
Resist what? A return to common sense? Finding the courage to acknowledge that the entire transgender movement is built on a lie and that “gender dysphoria” is a mental illness?
The Most Outrageous, Horrific Things USAID Did With Your Tax Dollars
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:
USAID, the country’s chief international aid agency, enjoys an annual budget of over $40 billion in appropriations—much of it splurged on a host of far-left foreign causes that run counter to Trump’s America First agenda. “They’re not a global charity,” Rubio said of USAID’s spending spree. “These are taxpayer dollars. People are asking simple questions. What are they doing with the money?”
Here are some of the most horrific projects, outrageous initiatives, and biggest boondoggles USAID has financed:
1. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Until Trump’s funding freeze, USAID was actively paying for “sex-change” procedures in Guatemala. USAID poured $2 million into Asociación Lambda, a Guatemalan LGBTQ+ activist organization, to “strengthen trans-led” activism and provide “gender-affirming health care,” grant records show. Launched in April 2024, the five-year program was slated to span through the spring of 2027.
Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s new chairman, released a report Tuesday exposing USAID’s frivolous DEI-related expenses. Among them, Mast reported, $1 million went toward supporting French-speaking LGBTQ+ groups in West and Central Africa, $3.3 million was blown on normalizing “being LGBTQ in the Caribbean,” and $425,600 helped Indonesian coffee companies become “more climate and gender friendly.”
Mast said $1.5 million had gone toward promoting job opportunities for LGBTQ-identifying individuals in Serbia, $16,500 for fostering a “united and equal queer-feminist discourse in Albanian society,” $47,000-plus on a “transgender opera” in Colombia, $32,000 for an LGBTQ-centered comic book in Peru, $70,880 on a musical promoting DEI in Ireland, $20,600 for a drag show in Ecuador, over $7,000 for a BIPOC speaker series in Canada, more than $39,650 to host seminars at the Edinburgh International Book Festival on “gender identity and racial equality,” $80,000 on an LGBTQ community center in Slovakia, $10,000 on pressuring Lithuanian corporations to push DEI messaging, and $8,000 to promote DEI among LGBTQ+ groups in Cyprus.
USAID’s Office of Chief Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility notified Congress just before Christmas that they’ve earmarked money (about $1 million) for several programs that will support “marginalized” groups in Indonesia, Guatemala, and Kenya. The funding notice said USAID would “engage with Indigenous-led institutions to implement an Indigenous language technology program” in Guatemala.
2. Climate Activism
In March 2023, USAID set aside up to $1 million to help disabled people in Tajikistan become “climate leaders.” The grant notice solicited proposals for a “Disability-Inclusive Climate Action” project in the Central Asian country that would ensure that disabled Tajikistanis are included “in the development of climate change response and mitigation policies.”
In May 2023, USAID unveiled a $1.5 million effort aimed at “empowering women to adapt to climate change in northern Kenya.” Women in the area, USAID wrote, live in “traditionally patriarchal communities” and need training to join Kenya’s fight against climate change. The program would “improve their participation in decision making” and “enhance adaptive capabilities to climate change.”
PLEASE CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINK TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE
The coming together of MAGA, MAHA, and DOGE represents decades of cultivation of disparate groups of dissidents who had not previously realized their common interests and common enemies.
Controversy is swirling throughout Washington on President Trump’s decision to withdraw a small number of U.S. Troops from the Turkish/Syrian border. The commentary below will give you some idea just how complicated the controversy of the entire Middle East is. Many Americans are tired of hearing about the constant fighting that has been going on in the Middle East for eons. You be the judge on what you think our American policy should be.
The unified foreign policy establishment in Washington, the Deep State politicos—from Lindsey Graham and Lynne Cheney in Congress, to the frenzied Never Trumpers like Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal, [“he’s (Trump) all impulse, blithely operating out of his depth”], to the near totality of the progressivist Left (e.g. Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and others), have come together (as they always will) to protect their sacred commitment to globalism and, this time, in fanatical opposition to President Trump’s decision to finally withdraw American support troops from northeastern Syria.
David Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale, is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard.
Political correctness is stupid. You disagree? I couldn’t care less. You’re a clown.
Donald Trump is succeeding, we’re told, because he appeals to angry voters — but that’s obvious; tell me more. Why are they angry, and how does he appeal to them? In 2016, Americans want to vote for a person and not a white paper. If you care about America’s fate under Obama, naturally you are angry; voters should distrust a candidate who is not angry.
But there’s more to it than mere anger. Chris Christie was angry, and he’s gone. Trump has hit on important issues — immigration, the economy, appeasement unlimited — in ways that appeal to voters emotionally. There’s nothing wrong with that; I trust someone who feels what I feel more than a person who merely thinks what I think. But though Rubio and Cruz are plainly capable of connecting with voters emotionally, Trump is way ahead — for many reasons, but the most important is obvious and virtually ignored.
Political correctness. Trump hasn’t made it a campaign theme exactly, but he mentions it often with angry disgust. Reporters, pundits, and the other candidates treat it as a sideshow, a handy way for Trump (King Kong Jr.) to smack down the pitiful airplanes that attack him as he bestrides his mighty tower, roaring. But the analysts have it exactly backward.Political correctness is the biggest issue facing America today. Even Trump has just barely faced up to it. The ironic name disguises the real nature of this force, which ought to be called invasive leftism or thought-police liberalism or metastasized progressivism.The old-time American mainstream, working- and middle-class white males and their families, is mad as hell about political correctness and the havoc it has wreaked for 40 years — havoc made worse by the flat refusal of most serious Republicans to confront it. Republicans rarely even acknowledge its existence as the open wound it really is; a wound that will fester forever until someone has the nerve to heal it — or the patient succumbs. To watch young minorities protest their maltreatment on fancy campuses when your own working life has seen, from the very start, relentless discrimination in favor of minorities—such events can make people a little testy.
Ted Cruz had a plausible election strategy, until Donald Trump stole it.
By
Daniel Henninger
Updated Feb. 25, 2016
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:
Donald Trump is properly understood as running an independent candidacy from inside the formal structure of the Republican Party, as Mike Bloomberg did to run for mayor of New York City. Nothing remotely resembling a political party is associated with Mr. Trump. If he loses the nomination or the general election, he will walk away from his Republican supporters by dawn. The GOP will look like a forest shredded by a tornado.
In the wake of his third-place finish in Nevada, Mr. Cruz’s case for himself is: Don’t forget Iowa. He has come a long way.
In the fall of 2013, the freshman Texas senator rolled the dice so boldly that the biggest congressional Texan of all time, Lyndon Johnson, would have been agog. Sen. Cruz, with the whole Republican Party raging at him, pulled off a shutdown of the U.S. government. He publicized the shutdown with a 21-hour speech on the Senate floor, attacking other Republicans for not joining his Pickett’s charge against ObamaCare, then a federal law.
Ted Cruz knew amid this GOP chaos that he was going to run for president in 2016. He had the game plan in hand.
The plan was to make a household name for himself as the Republican Party’s best-known outsider. A narrative back then held that a deep wave of anger at the party’s leadership was building in the heartland. Ted Cruz was going to personally deepen the anger and then ride it.
It would surface with a victory in Iowa, which he got, build in South Carolina, and then surge through Super Tuesday and especially Texas with an unstoppable number of Cruz delegates fished from this angry Republican sea of outsiders—tea partiers, anti-immigrant voters, pro-Snowden libertarians, evangelicals and anyone foaming mad at Barack Obama. The mad-as-hell vote.
It was a plausible primary strategy, elegant even in its mathematical inevitability, despite the crushed-glass content.
Do Republicans deserve to lose? Consider the state of play as we write this in late January, just days from the first GOP nominating contests.
The Republican frontrunner is a longtime liberal whose worldview might best be described as an amalgam of pop-culture progressivism and vulgar nationalism. His campaign rallies are orgies of self-absorption, dominated by juvenile insults of those who criticize him and endless boasting about his poll numbers.
Do Republicans deserve to lose? Consider the state of play as we write this in late January, just days from the first GOP nominating contests.
The Republican frontrunner is a longtime liberal whose worldview might best be described as an amalgam of pop-culture progressivism and vulgar nationalism. His campaign rallies are orgies of self-absorption, dominated by juvenile insults of those who criticize him and endless boasting about his poll numbers. He’s a narcissist and a huckster, an opportunist who not only failed to join conservatives in the big fights about the size and scope of government over the past several decades but, to the extent he was even aware of such battles, was often funding the other side, with a long list of contributions to the liberals most responsible for the dire state of affairs in the country, including likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
In short, he’s an opposition researcher’s dream. But Republicans have spent tens of millions of dollars on political advertising this cycle and virtually none of it has targeted Donald Trump. He is poised to glide into the early-state contests having largely avoided the kind of sustained paid-media attacks that bring down candidates with far fewer vulnerabilities.
Trump introduced a young woman severely and permanently injured in a volleyball game against a male opponent masquerading as female. She rose in quiet dignity clearly still impacted by the traumatic brain injury she suffered.
