✪ THE BIG FRIDAY SOOPER THREAD

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF ISRAEL ASSASSINATED THE AYATOLLAH?

ggg

s President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flirt with the idea of assassinating Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, experts warn such a decision could throw the conflict situation into a new level of uncertainty.

Trump and Netanyahu have left the door open for an assassination on the Supreme Leader, with Trump saying Tuesday on Truth Social that he was aware of the location of the supreme leader if the U.S. or Israel want to kill Khamenei. The Ayatollah’s killing could possibly improve the chances of Iran capitulating but also could signal to Iran that Israel’s war with Tehran is more about regime change than denuclearization.

“If you actually have such an assassination, it kind of signals to the Iranians that this is certainly not about the nuclear program, but this is a much broader regime collapse, regime change, type of a campaign,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Upon the death of a supreme leader, Iran would have to select a new leader through the Assembly of Experts, a group of 88 senior clerics under the state religion of Shia Islam. The real process for selecting the new lifetime leader of the nation, however, is often determined in advance behind closed doors.

There are disparate rumors as to who would succeed Khamenei, but his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, is a likely candidate given his political power and his grooming for leadership under his father’s tutelage. Leaders from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who are fiercely loyal to the supreme leader and his office, may emerge to mount a challenge to the proverbial throne, said Cliff May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. May added:

“There may be high officials in the IRGC who think: ‘Really, I should be in power. I mean, I’m going to be loyal to the ayatollah, of course, but after him it should be me. This is more complicated now than it was two weeks ago because a lot of IRGC leaders have been killed, and many more may be killed before this is over.”

In an X post Wednesday, Khamenei said Iran would not surrender to Israel or the U.S., adding he was not “frightened by such threats.” He also said he would strike U.S. military bases in the region if America took any offensive military action against the Islamic Republic.

A decision to assassinate the political and religious leader of 93 million Iranians is certainly an option that would require intense deliberation from Israel and the U.S.

“I say it’s a serious option because my guess is that Israeli intelligence is pretty good, and they probably have a pretty good idea where Ali Khamenei is,” May added. “I know the cost-benefit is something that they are sitting down and trying to say, ‘OK, here are the pluses. Here are the minuses for us doing it.’ In other words, I don’t know that the decision has been made either by the Israelis or by the White House to take him out.”

The ayatollah’s assassination would likely prompt a military response from the regime, as Tehran launched retaliatory strikes when Trump assassinated IRGC Gen. Qasem Soleimani on Iraqi soil in 2020. Those strikes netted zero deaths of U.S. personnel, although there were 100 reported cases of traumatic brain injuries from the bombardment.

Trump is unlikely to take another attack on U.S. bases lying down if a hypothetical assassination leads to further escalation.

“Trump might say ‘OK, your militias are hitting our bases. I’m sorry, I’m not gonna let that go unanswered,’” May said. “So that’s not a great thing for them. In the meantime, every day, their military capabilities are being weakened.”

Iran also risks complete collapse if the ayatollah is killed, given the nature of the regime relying on revolutionary ideals to justify its existence, according to Zineb Riboua, research fellow at the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East in the Hudson Institute. Riboua said:

“The Islamic Republic is a revolutionary regime. It feeds on the narrative that it is a revolution that needs to be exported and that Iran is the surrogate for a successful revolution that will go from the Middle East to Africa. And I think because of what the Israelis have done, they’ve completely shattered this illusion.”

Riboua added that while retaliation would be likely, Iran’s capacity to attack the U.S. or Israel is considerably diminished from the past due to the degradation of its own capabilities.

The White House and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. ✪

EPA LAUNCHES THE BIGGEST DEREGULATION ACTION IN US HISTORY

mmm

ow coming into view are the specifics of EPA’s strategy to end the Obama/Biden efforts to strangle the energy sector of the economy in the name of “saving the planet” from climate change. A document released by EPA last week on June 11 lays out the plan for repeal of the absurd (and dangerous) regulation that would have ended use of fossil fuels to generate electricity by some time in the 2030s. This EPA document is particularly interesting for the way it treats — and effectively sidelines — the so-called Endangerment Finding, the 2009 regulatory action that is the basis for all of the Obama/Biden fossil fuel suppression efforts.

▶️ 2 Minutes 17 Seconds

President Trump made it clear from the first day of his new administration that he intended to undo as many as possible of the Obama/Biden era burdens and restriction on American energy production and use. Among the Executive Orders which Trump signed on “Day 1” (January 20, 2025) was one titled “Unleashing American Energy.” All agency heads were directed to review existing energy regulations for potential rescission as being overly burdensome. Excerpt:

Sec. 3.  . . .  (a)  The heads of all agencies shall review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, settlements, consent orders, and any other agency actions . . . to identify those agency actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources — with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources. . . .

On March 12, EPA followed through with an announcement of what it called the “biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history.” The announcement identified and listed some 31 EPA regulations and programs as unduly burdening the American economy, and therefore targeted for extinction. These ranged from rules designed to eliminate fossil fuel-fired power plants (called “Clean Power Plan 2.0,” or CPP 2.0), to rules restricting automobile emissions (and effectively mandating electric vehicles), to the massive “greenhouse gas reporting program,” and many, many more. The first item at the top of the list for elimination was CPP 2.0. However, at that time, the actual process for rescinding these various rules had not yet begun, and it remained unclear what approach EPA might take to effect the rescissions.

As regards CPP 2.0, that ambiguity ended on June 11, when there appeared on EPA’s website a “pre-publication” version of the document intended to initiate the rescission of CPP 2.0. The title is “Repeal of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units.” The actual regulatory rescission process formally begins when this document gets published in what is called the Federal Register. Apparently, that occurred on June 17.

There are several notable things about this document. First, it signals that CPP 2.0 will be eliminated through a process of formal “notice and comment” rule making under the Administrative Procedure Act. Second, it lays out the schedule and procedures for the rescission, thus giving an indication of when the process will be concluded (and ripe for judicial review). Third, it provides the rationale for the rescission, grounding that rationale in the language of the relevant statute (here Clean Air Act Section 111). And fourth — and most significant in my view — it uses a rationale that implicitly undoes and undermines the Biden-era “Endangerment Finding” that underlies all of the government’s greenhouse gas regulations. And it does that without ever confronting the so-called “science” of greenhouse warming. I’ll take these points one at a time.

The first seven or so pages of EPA’s document set forth the procedure and schedule of the prospective rescission. There will be a virtual public hearing 15 days after Federal Register publication (thus, in early July). Comments will be due 45 days after Federal Register publication. That means that the comment period can be closed by some time in early August. After that, EPA must respond to the comments before finalizing its action. They will want to be careful in doing that. (Any slip-up can give an opening to a court to enjoin its action.) However, relative to other rule makings, there will be no occasion in this one to modify the rule’s language in response to comments, since the rule is being eliminated entirely. I highly doubt that any commenter is going to dissuade the current EPA from rescinding this rule. While this is somewhat speculative, I expect that the rescission can be finalized by early fall. And then, on to the litigation!

Note that EPA is not taking the alternative route of just asserting that CPP 2.0 is illegal as unauthorized by the Clean Air Act and beyond the powers of the executive branch pursuant to the Major Question Doctrine as articulated in West Virginia v. EPA. The administration may well use that theory as an alternative basis to support repeal of CPP 2.0 when their regulatory action gets challenged in court. However, I think they are wise to add a second rationale to support the repeal.

Now to the interesting part of EPA’s document. The basic approach to getting rid of CPP 2.0 is not to try to attack it on the basis of the badly flawed so-called “science” of greenhouse gases and global warming. Rather, the approach is to carefully parse the language of Clean Air Act Section 111 to emphasize words that were ignored or downplayed in the previous regulatory actions.

Many discussions of the Obama-era Endangerment Finding speak of EPA supporting its prior regulatory action by having made a determination that greenhouse gases constitute “a danger to public health and welfare.” That is a shorthand which I admit I have myself been guilty of using. But the actual words of the applicable statute are different. Here are the relevant words of Clean Air Act Section 111(b)(1)(A):

[The EPA Administrator] shall include a category of sources in such list [of sources of pollutants] if in his judgment it causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

Thus, it is not sufficient to satisfy the words of the statute that greenhouse gases in the aggregate or in general might be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare in some way. Rather, there must be a determination that emissions from this category of sources specifically (here, U.S. electric power plants) are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute significantly to a danger to public health or welfare. And also, by the words of the statute, this determination is committed to the judgment of the EPA Administrator.

There is some endless discussion in the document of the impact of these semantic nuances. Here is a small sample from pages 52-53:

Consistent with its ordinary meaning, the term “significant[]” is defined as “having or likely to have influence or effect: important.” “Important” is similarly defined, in turn, as “marked by or indicative of significant worth or consequence : valuable in content or relationship.” Whether a source category’s contribution to air pollution should be considered “important” or “valuable” entails consideration of the influence, effect, or usefulness of finding such contribution. If regulating emissions of a particular pollutant from a source category would have little effect on dangerous air pollution, that source category’s contribution to the air pollution is not significant. By the same token, if regulating emissions would not be useful, taking into account, inter alia, the impacts on, and the Administration’s policies concerning, the source category, that source category’s contribution to the air pollution is not significant. An inquiry into the effect of a finding of significance necessarily involves policy considerations that will inform any subsequent regulation when making the significance determination in the first instance.

The Biden Administration’s CPP 2.0 had sought to eliminate fossil fuel-fired power plants by imposing an uneconomic requirement of carbon capture and storage on any such remaining plants. But this document explains that that approach cannot comply with the statutory text:

Thus, the control options available to reduce GHGs from fossil fuel-fired EGUs [Electricity Generating Units] are not permissible as BSER {Best System of Emissions Reduction], not adequately demonstrated, cost unreasonable, or potentially ineffective in reducing emissions. Because it is likely that the Agency may be unable to develop a BSER that would result in any meaningful, cost-reasonable GHG emission reductions, the contribution of this source category to GHG air pollution is not significant.

And the Trump EPA has also caught on that greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. power plant sector have no “significance” when the broader international picture is considered. From page 63:

Unlike other air pollutants that can have a localized or regional impact and direct consequences to human health, GHGs are global pollutants. The share of GHG emissions from the U.S. power sector, including CO2, to global concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere is relatively minor and has been declining over time. In 2005, U.S. electric power sector GHG emissions comprised 5.5 percent of total global GHG emissions. This percentage has fallen steadily since then to 4.6 percent in 2010, to 3.7 percent in 2015, and comprising 3 percent of total global emissions by 2022. This relative decline is driven in part by increases in GHG emissions from developing countries that are rapidly electrifying and increasing their energy demands, including through the robust deployment of fossil fuel-fired EGUs —a trend that is likely to persist going forward. Further, many other countries burn much more coal than is utilized by the U.S. power sector. For example, in 2024, China used more than 13 times as much coal as the U.S. . . . Limiting the use of coal and other fossil fuels in U.S. EGUs does not significantly impact global GHG concentrations when other countries continue to increase their use of fossil fuels.

There is lots of other good stuff in this document — far more than I can quote here. To be fair, EPA is following the tried and true regulatory strategy of burying the public in verbiage as a way to make it as difficult as possible for a court to intervene.

As can be seen from the above, this proposed regulatory action relates to CPP 2.0 specifically, and not to the Endangerment Finding more generally. Nevertheless, the logic expressed in this document has the effect of undermining the EF and rendering it essentially ineffective. The same arguments as to “significance” of U.S.-based emissions, and as to the EPA Administrator’s right to exercise his judgment under statutory language, will apply to all other sectors where the Obama/Biden Administrations had sought to suppress the use of fossil fuels. All the environmental groups that have been gearing up to defend the “science” of global warming are going to need to totally re-tool their arguments.✪

BRIAN WILSON’S CALIFORNIA DIED DECADES AGO

sss

he sad news that Brian Wilson, the musical genius behind the Beach Boys, died last week at age 82 carried with it a strange and foreboding symbolism. His death came as Los Angeles was reeling from a series of riots — and poised to plunge into a period of sustained civic unrest.

Mass immigration from Mexico, legal and illegal, transformed California and created a fractured, riotous, and unstable polity.

The immediate cause of the unrest is violent opposition to the legitimate enforcement of federal immigration law, especially among Mexican nationals and Mexican-American residents of Los Angeles. In recent days we’ve all heard impassioned declarations from anti-ICE protesters, rioters, and many in the corporate press along the lines that “Los Angeles belongs to Mexico,” or that California was “stolen” from Mexico.

At the heart of these protests and riots we have seen, in short, the assertion of a specifically ethnic and Mexican national identity over and against an American national identity — immortalized in the striking images of masked rioters waving the Mexican flag amid burning vehicles, rubble, and beleaguered police.

That all this was happening in California, and that Wilson passed away in the middle of it all, underscores just how much California has been demographically and culturally transformed by mass immigration from Mexico since the 1960s. Put bluntly, the California that Wilson sang about died long before he did. Through the mass immigration regime established by the 1965 Hart-Celler Act, what was once a stable bastion of American life and culture — that for many people epitomized the American dream — was replaced by an inherently volatile and fractured polity built on the unstable foundation of multiculturalism and competing ethnic identities.

When the Beach Boys released their first album Surfin’ Safari in 1962, and in quick succession released follow-ups Surfin’ USA, Surfer Girl, and Little Deuce Coupe in 1963, California was about 90 percent white and its Hispanic population was rather small, about 7 percent (today those shares are 34 and 40 percent, respectively). The culture, industry, and infrastructure of California were the creation of non-Hispanic whites who settled there from the late19th to early 20 Century. Neither Los Angeles nor California at large in any sense “belonged to Mexico” or was even Mexican in a cultural sense.

California in the 1960s was more racially and ethnically diverse than many other states, owing partly to its geographical size and unique history, but it was nevertheless overwhelmingly white and Christian; like the rest of America at the time. In contrast to the fractured identities and split loyalties of our time, mid-century Americans had a shared identity and culture — and shared loyalties and loves.

No wonder, then, that the country was adept at assimilating a relatively small number of immigrants through the maintenance of norms around citizenship, social cohesion, and national interests. We had not yet severed a tradition of patriotic assimilation stretching back 200 years that allowed us to incorporate newcomers into a robust and confident American polity. George Washington’s hopes had been vindicated, that immigrants, “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.”

That we were in fact one people with a common culture could be heard in the popular music we produced. The iconic sound cultivated by Wilson and the Beach Boys during their most popular and influential period, from their debut album in 1962 to Pet Sounds in 1966, was sometimes called the California Sunshine Sound, and it evoked an innocence, optimism, and playfulness appropriate to a society with every reason to be confident and hopeful about its place and the world. California, as Michael Anton writes in his book The Stakes, “was the greatest middle-class paradise in the history of mankind. Yet, in barely one generation, that California was swept away and transformed into a left-liberal one-party state.”

How did that happen? It began with the passage of Hart-Celler in 1965, which transformed the basis of immigration and ushered in a period of rapid demographic change in America. The new immigration regime created by Hart-Celler abandoned the quota-based immigration system that had prioritized immigration from European countries that shared closer cultural, religious, and ethnic ties to the United States. Instead, immigration under Hart-Celler would be based on family reunification, the need for workers, and the protection of refugees.

At the time, Democrats like President Lyndon B. Johnson and Sen. Ted Kennedy assured voters that Hart-Celler would not, in Kennedy’s infamous declaration, “disrupt the ethnic composition of our society.” They were wrong. 

Indeed, the long-term effects of Hart-Celler cannot be overstated. In short, it worked a radical demographic transformation of America in a matter of decades. Prior to 1965, about 84 percent of all immigrants to the U.S. came from Europe, with only about 10 percent from Mexico and Latin America. Today, nearly half of all immigrants hail from Mexico and Latin America, with around 30 percent coming from South and East Asia, while immigrants from Europe and Canada make up only about 12 percent.

Hart-Celler was of course not the only factor in the massive cultural upheavals of the 1960s, which included urban race riots, the sexual revolution, and the anti-war protests connected to the Vietnam War. However, Hart-Celler worked its changes over decades, such that by the 1990s, California in particular had gone through a massive demographic shift, with huge numbers of Hispanic immigrants — many of whom attained legal status thanks to President Ronald Regan’s 1986 amnesty to nearly three million illegal immigrants.

These sweeping demographic changes heralded profound political changes. Reagan, a popular former governor of California, swept the state in consecutive presidential elections in the 1980s. But by the early 1990s Democrats had come to dominate California politics, and they have since cemented their control over the state.

When Democrats were taking control of California, however, they were not the champions of open borders and mass immigration they are today. Voters in both parties recognized the deluge of immigration unleashed by Hart-Celler was a destabilizing force in civic life, and they wanted to do something about it. In 1994, California residents overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187, which denied state benefits to illegal immigrants.

Opponents of the measure, including the President of Mexico and the Democrat gubernatorial candidate, Gray Davis, who succeeded Republican Pete Wilson, claimed it was xenophobic and racist. Mass protests ensued that explicitly appealed to ethnic identities and divided national loyalties, with student demonstrations and walk-outs featuring marchers waving the Mexican flag — a controversial move at the time that many establishment Democrats and opponents of Prop 187 denounced, arguing that protesters should be waving American flags. The measure was eventually struck down by a federal judge, sealing California’s demographic fate. 

The subsequent success of California Democrats has come in part from pandering to the state’s large Hispanic immigrant minority, promoting a concept of citizenship that rejects assimilation and patriotism in favor of what Mike Gonzales has called the “transnational multicultural movement,” which champions “the novel idea that immigrants should reject assimilation, retain loyalty to their country of birth, and become active participants in the American political process.”

The result of this reckless and indeed revolutionary idea is what we now see playing out on the streets of Los Angeles: Mexican flags flown in defiance of U.S. law enforcement amid rioting and looting, fractured political identities among an immigrant population that maintains loyalties to foreign nations, and a social order without cohesion or stability.

A nation cannot survive under these conditions. It will eventually come apart. Sixty years after setting the policy conditions in place, California — and by extension, all of America — is doing just that. ✪

JB SHURK: SLAVE LABOR WON’T SAVE AMERICA

bbb

ompromised communist and current Los Angeles mayor, Karen Bass, recently told paid propagandist Dana Bash on the Communist News Network that there are “entire sectors of our economy that cannot function without immigrant labor.”  By “immigrant labor,” the Castro-loving Bass means illegal alien labor.  

It is certainly not the first time a Democrat politician has argued that foreign workers are essential for the success of America’s economy, but when an L.A. mayor delivers that message as if it were a matter-of-fact truth, a real reporter might follow up with this question: You mean, the only way for a large number of businesses to remain solvent is for them to break America’s employment laws?  

To be sure, employing illegal aliens means that crimes are being committed.  If an illegal alien uses fake identification documents, an American citizen is most likely the victim of identity theft.  If a business knowingly hires an illegal alien, then it is violating numerous federal laws and Internal Revenue Service regulations.  If a business ignores minimum wage laws, employment regulations, workplace safety rules, and insurance mandates, then it is breaking state laws, too.  

In other words, when commie Mayor Bass tells CNN that America’s economy runs on illegal immigration, she is nonchalantly informing the network’s declining viewership that breaking the law is the only way for “entire sectors” to survive. Her admission won’t shock most Americans, but it should.  

Black markets are economic transactions that disregard existing law.  In a developed society with a fair and just legal system, robust protections for private property, and cultural mores that include respect for the rule of law, black markets represent a small portion of that society’s total economy.  Where laws are numerous and selectively enforced, private property is routinely confiscated, and law-abiding behavior is derided as “for the chumps,” then black markets flourish.  

In absolute dollar terms, the U.S. supports the second largest shadow economy in the world.  It’s estimated to be worth at least $1.4 trillion each year.  It could be much higher.  Although America’s black market has often been pegged at somewhere between 5% and 15% of its gross domestic product, those numbers depend upon manipulated statistics — including the oft-used political falsehood that the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. has stayed flat at ten million for over thirty years.  

When state and federal agencies ignore identity fraud (under the Obama and Biden Administrations, the IRS did not notify citizens when there was reason to believe that illegal aliens were using their social security numbers), aid and abet illegal immigration, and willfully manipulate crime and residency statistics to hide the real size of the foreign population living inside the U.S., it is reasonable to assume that America’s black market is substantially larger than current estimates.  

When prominent Democrats tell network news hosts that “entire sectors” of the American economy will crumble unless they are allowed to continue breaking the law, government officials are essentially claiming that the whole economic system rests atop a rotten shadow economy whose elimination would collapse everything.  Consider how fragile America’s economy must be if its continued survival depends upon flagrant lawbreaking.

In the U.S. and throughout the West, society is rapidly cleaving into hostile coalitions that speak different political languages.  When it comes to discussions of illegal immigration in America, Democrats routinely express some belief that only illegal immigrants will do the “dirty jobs” of the nation.  If President Trump is successful in deporting millions of illegal immigrants, these Democrats argue, there will be no-one left to pick crops, work in factories, build homes, cut grass, clean pools, dust furniture, or look after the children.  Essentially, Democrats advance a position that any job that they deem menial — especially those jobs requiring physical exertion — should be reserved for illegal immigrants.

To the ears of Republicans and other non-leftists, this kind of reasoning sounds horrifically racist.  Hearing Democrats defend these illegal hiring practices is particularly astonishing because Democrats have spent the last sixty years defining themselves as a political association dedicated to fighting racism.  Nothing says, “We’re here to fight white supremacy,” like a party of middle and upper class professionals who demand cheap brown labor.  

The truth is that tens of millions of American citizens — of all races — would be happy to be gainfully employed doing physical labor.  One of the persistent lies propagated over the last century is that people with brains avoid skilled trades and that people with so-called “professional careers” know what’s best for everyone else.  

As someone who has been around farmers, laborers, academics, lawyers, doctors, and government hotshots, I can tell you that this intellectual separation is just not real.  I have learned as much in a field under the baking sun as I have in a classroom, and I’ve known tinkerers and repairmen more clever than surgeons and engineers.  When Democrats demand jobs for “brown people,” they reveal their own class prejudices and misguided belief that high-class people with prestigious titles but few skills naturally know more than regular people without titles but with many skills.  

In my experience, groupthink is endemic among white-collar professionals — especially among professors, journalists, writers, and other so-called “intellectuals.”  To find creative freethinkers, one must venture far from the university campus and meet people whose minds have not yet been infected by manufactured consent and political correctness.  A lot of those people are perfectly comfortable doing dirty jobs for a living.

There are plenty of American citizens willing to do the jobs currently being done by illegal aliens.  What Democrats don’t like is that hiring Americans means that their supply of artificially cheap labor disappears.  When minimum wage laws, employer regulations, and taxation are enforced, it becomes much more expensive to pay other people to clean your home, care for your lawn, and take care of your children.  When competitive market wages replace black market wages, the true cost of a century of inflation cannot be hidden behind discounts from slave-like labor.

Thirty years ago, grocery stores, fast-food restaurants, and lawn care companies primarily employed teenagers.  Every worker in a McDonald’s had zits, and the manager was usually going to college.  Now adults do all those jobs.  What changed?  NAFTA and other international “trade deals” (including Bill Clinton’s normalization of trade relations with communist China) exported America’s manufacturing and industrial jobs to foreign competitors and adversaries.  With millions of jobs disappearing in the space of a decade, adults grabbed the entry-level positions that teenaged workers once held.  

While this slaughter in the job market took place, white-collar professionals assured Americans that exporting jobs would lower inflation and therefore consumer costs.  Prices did hold…for a while.  But continuous money printing and spending ensured that inflation could not be hidden forever.  Now fast-food meals cost fifteen dollars, and there’s talk of twenty- or thirty-dollar minimum hourly wages.

How have white-collar professionals responded to these steady price increases? They have simply flooded the nation with illegal aliens and adopted a slave-labor-like system for themselves.  Regular Americans might have trouble finding jobs or paying bills, but those with the resources to break the law without suffering the consequences have found a workaround.  They even have the audacity to virtue-signal about their love for “undocumented” slaves — er, I mean, migrants — while condemning those of us who object to demographic replacement.  

When Democrats claim that the economy can’t survive without slave labor, they are indicting their own tax-and-spend policies that have depreciated the value of the dollar and sunk the nation into forty trillion dollars of debt.  Eventually, even slavery won’t keep costs down.  What happens next?  American workers will have to take their country back. ✪

DEMOCRATS HAVE RELEASED THE WHIRLWIND OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE

ooo

n an interview with CBS News this week, the mother of slain Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman described her daughter as a person of peace in an increasingly politically violent America. However, Hate-filled Democrats have shown us time and time again that their compassion is privileged and division is their politics.

“The division needs to end,” Linda Haluptzok told the broadcast news outlet just days after the former Democrat Speaker of the Minnesota House and her husband, Mark, were brutally murdered in their Brooklyn Park home. The suspected gunman, Vance Boelter, is also accused of seriously wounding fellow Democrat and Minnesota state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, in the connected attacks. Haluptzok said:

“There was a time not that long ago that we could all work together, and whatever steps we need to get back there, I don’t know how we do it, but we all have to try, And if it’s one person at a time, we have to make it happen. And we can’t let hatred and division rule the actions that are happening now.”

These are understandable sentiments from a mother forced to bury her child after what officials have described as a case of targeted political violence. 

However don’t expect the division and hatred to end anytime soon in a country in which more than half of the people who identify as left-leaning believe — at least at some level — it would be justifiable to assassinate President Donald Trump and members of his administration. That startling revelation came after Trump escaped assassination by a fraction of an inch. Trump Derangement Syndrome is very real — and it has turned very violent. 

✪ ‘Honk If You Hate Trump’

While Democrats crassly campaign on the bodies of the Hortmans, abetted by their allies in the propaganda press, the hatred rolls on from the unhinged and hypocritical left. 

Perhaps the best illustration of liberal cognitive dissonance is a recent photo of two “No Kings” protesters standing together on a median holding two signs. One declares: “Hate Dosen’t [Sic] Make America Great!” The other urges motorists to “Honk If You Hate Trump!” 

▶️ 49 Seconds

And then there’s state Rep. Julie von Haefen. The North Carolina Democrat, within hours of the murders of the Hortmans and the attempted homicides of the Hoffmans, posted a social media post depicting the beheading of Trump. As the Center Square reported, the lawmaker’s post featured another “No Kings” protester holding a sign with an image of a blood-soaked guillotine, with the message beneath proclaiming: “In these difficult times, some cuts may be necessary.” A prop on one end of the handle represented Trump’s severed head, and on the other end a Nazi Party swastika scrawled across another detached head. 

Von Haefen took the Facebook post down after taking a lot of heat. She wrote that she agreed the image was “inappropriate,” and “later edited the video to remove the photo.” The lawmaker wanted “to be clear” that she condemns political violence in all forms. She apologized a few days later. 

At the same time, Democrats pounced on Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah for his post commenting on the Minnesota shootings that “this is what happens when Marxists don’t get their way.” Minnesota Democrat Sen. Tina Smith, another leftist suffering from a nasty form of TDS, made the corporate media rounds talking about how “cruel” Lee is. Corporate media, of course, was more than happy to oblige because many of its members hate Donald Trump and his supporters as much as Smith does. 

The same news outlets that have made myriad baseless claims about everything from Hunter Biden’s laptop to Joe Biden’s mental acuity are excoriating Mike Lee and other Republicans for making “baseless claims” in the hours following the Minnesota shootings.  

✪ ‘Released The Whirlwind’ 

Guess who else attacked Lee for potentially “escalating a perilous moment.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the blowhard Democrat who has frequently traded in the currency of political hate, said he was “deeply disappointed and sickened to see a member of the chamber use the tragedy in Minnesota to take cheap political shots at the other side on social media, and risk escalating a perilous moment.” That’s some chutzpa from the same guy who at a pro-abortion rally threatened conservative Supreme Court justices, warning that they would “pay the price” should they vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

“I want to tell you [Justice Neil] Gorsuch. I want to tell you [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” the “deeply disappointed” hypocrite shouted in 2020 with the Supreme Court building as his backdrop. 

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did vote to overturn the unconstitutional 49-year-old ruling that nationally legalized the murder of millions of unborn human beings. And the justices paid a price. 

In June 2022, a California man armed with a knife, gun, and zip ties planned to kidnap and kill Kavanaugh. Nicholas John Roske pleaded guilty in April to attempted murder. He faces 30 years to life. 

✪ Division Is Their Politics

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who is now grieving the loss of his friend Hortman, last month vilified Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents as “modern-day Gestapo” and labeled Trump a “tyrant.” 

“Some would say, ‘Boy, this is getting way too political for a commencement address,’” the failed Democratic vice-presidential candidate told students graduating from the University of Minnesota Law School. “But I would argue, I wouldn’t be honoring my oath if I didn’t address this head on.”

Assaults on ICE agents have risen north of 400 percent, and “doxxing” incidents are through the roof, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Walz, again, is imploring Americans to turn down the political temperature. 

“The way our nation moves forward is not through hate. It is not through violence. It is through humility, and grace, and compassion,” he said following last weekend’s shootings. 

Of course Walz is right. He’s also a hypocrite. He and his fellow hate-filled Democrats have shown us time and time again that their compassion is privileged and division is their politics. ✪

ALL PayPal Transactions Are Encrypted For Card Holder Privacy & Security

ZELLE is the perfect online alternative to PayPal. It’s an incredibly simple, secure, easy, fast and FREE way to send or receive money to recipients directly from your online banking account without a middleman. Best of all, there’s NO fees.

ZELLE is a service provided by your bank and is already built in to your online banking account. You only need to activate it first before using. If you’ve already activated ZELLE in your online bank or credit union account, you can donate to The New Americanist by using our ZELLE address:

vip@thenewamericanist.com

To activate your ZELLE, follow these easy instructions (a simple two minute process):