Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

John, watching your interaction on X / Twitter with the crazies about your post of “Any of them. You could have nominated any of them, Republicans.” made me wonder. How much joy does it bring you to engage with the crazies? Are most of them trolls and bots?

I find it almost exhausting just watching your interaction. I give you credit for it, but I also wonder if you’re starting to lose it. 😉 Maybe we need Kimberly Ross to step in for you for some well needed R&R. — Judd Y.

Lol. For the other readers here, this is the post Judd is referring to:

I posted it after President Trump’s announcement of the “ENERGY CEASEFIRE” agreement he claimed to have made with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky, that would have not only violated the U.S. law, but given a crap-load of money to Russia (in exchange for diesel fuel) which would have assuredly gone to further funding Russia’s war-invasion of Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Zelensky knew nothing about the agreement, and Russia never ceased its firing on Ukraine anyway. It’s unclear if this alleged deal (which Trump mistakenly believes will bring down diesel prices in the United States) will go anywhere from here, but Trump has been bashing Ukraine (again) ever since, ridiculously blaming them for the high price of diesel in the United States, and calling for Ukraine to elect a new president. He apparently even withheld real-time intelligence and satellite guidance from them for a day or two, which is disgraceful.

My post was just a quick reminder that there were a number of fit and capable Republicans running for president in 2024 (against a very weak and unpopular Democratic administration), but the party chose the guy who they knew, among other things, had a man-crush on Putin — an enemy of America. As you noticed, the tweet received lots of crazy responses.

To answer your question: No, it doesn’t bring me “joy” to engage with some of the crazies, but I do think there’s some benefit, at times, in mocking these (mostly anonymous) bozos who spend countless hours online trying to bully/harass people into silence. As to whether they’re trolls or bots, it’s a combination of both — I think more trolls than bots (though they’re effectively the same thing these days). And since you brought up my friend Kimberly Ross, I will say that I’m pretty sure she’s meaner to the trolls than I am. Lol. She’s been known to bring a barbwire bat to a rubber-band fight, and you can quote me on that.

John, While sitting here doing a bit of simple math, I realize the debt of many countries, including our own, but at the same time many Muslim countries are very extremely wealthy. Won’t this lead to a scenario of these wealthy countries gaining more world power and influence while Europe and America flounder in debt? Or worse? — Sharon H.

It’s a very good point, Sharon. In addition to what the debt crisis will do to us domestically, it will be very damaging to our role and influence on the world stage. It therefore would not only pose a national security threat, but open up vacuums across the globe for other countries (including bad actors working against American interests) to fill.

Our national debt is a catastrophic threat to our country, and both parties are only making it worse. When things implode, however, we can rest assured that they’ll only blame each other.

Do you think former Attorney General nominee Matt Gaetz will receive a presidential pardon, regarding allegations he sex trafficked two young women. — Ben G.

I don’t think he’s been charged with a crime, but is rather facing a civil lawsuit. Thus, a pardon wouldn’t apply. But if Gaetz did want a pardon for something, I’m guessing he could probably get one.

John: Bernie wrote a column this week about NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s obsession with Israel. The Boulder, CO city council (near and dear to your home) is suing several oil companies for their part in climate change, an action that is now in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year, Karen Bass was on a diplomatic trip to Ghana when the Palisades fires broke out, despite dire warnings ahead of time that her city was in grave danger of such a natural disaster. What is with this recent phenomenon of local officials involving themselves with international issues far beyond the scope of their municipalities? Are they so bored with bond elections, budgets and potholes that they feel the need to veer way out of their lanes? — Steve R.

I think there’s definitely something to your last question, Steve, but I believe it’s less about boredom than it is an often misguided desire to make a bigger difference. Many years ago, Tip O’Neill said that “All politics is local." The view carried some wisdom at the time, but the political landscape has changed a lot since then. Most Americans these days view politics through a national lens. There are many reasons why, including the 24/7 news cycle and the internet, which have led to the growth of grievance-festering online communities (rather than unifying local communities), and the turning of our politics into a form of entertainment. Far too many people these days view public service as a platform for becoming a celebrity influencer or activist, rather than as an opportunity (and honor) to serve the constituents that voted them into office. Such people tend to — as you say — veer way out of their lanes.

Sir John — Apparently Mayor Mamdahni was recently heckled by his former far left supporters who accused him of being complicit in the false claims of “genocide” because he apparently was NOT far enough to the left for the progs.. Of course the usual left-wing pundits are calling this a “conspiratorial psy-op” from the conservatives. I personally find it amusing to see Mamdahni on the receiving end of the leftist nonsense that he pushes. What are your thoughts on all of this? —“Mamdahni, Whaddya’ Say? How Many Kids Did ‘Ya Kill Today?” Regards from The Emperor

I paid very little attention to this, Emperor, but when someone of influence strings along people with extreme views, that person runs the risk of later falling victim to those same people for not being “extreme enough.”

Case in point, it’s still wild to me how sheepish President Trump is when it comes to Operation Warp Speed (the fast creation and deployment of the Covid-19 vaccines). It’s the biggest achievement of his first term, and it should be a huge bragging point for him (he brags about everything else), but the conspiracy nuts he often caters to think the vaccine is evil and the virus was basically harmless. Thus, he distances himself from that achievement. Some think he even nominated RFK Jr. for HHS Secretary to repent for it.

Like I said, wild.

Trump decided not to live-stream Nidal Malik Hasan’s execution. Good thing, or bad thing? — Alex D.

Good thing. I’m not convinced Trump was ever on board for live-streaming it. I think that was the brainchild of Pete Hegseth, who comes up with lots of bad ideas.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“They’ve been surprised by the attention, surprised by the affection, surprised by all the letters of love and support they have received.”

The Iran hostage crisis ended on January 20, 1981. 52 American hostages were freed after 444 days in captivity, and were flown home to the United States to return to their former lives. As one would expect, they took different paths and made different life adjustments with their newfound freedom.

In April of that year, I caught up with some of the former hostages for the CBS Evening News.

Read more

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at Zohran Mamdani’s anti-Israel obsession.

Share

Read more

It’s not a good idea to tell people how they should feel. It makes it sound like you’re the smart one and they’re not bright enough to understand what’s best for them. It’s true in life in general — and especially true in politics.

People feel the way they feel, and all the blue-sky stuff presidents tell them isn’t going to change that.

Joe Biden, a man who’d been around politics since Moses was in short pants, should have understood this. He didn’t. And, as they say, the rest is history.

During his four years in the White House, Mr. Biden repeatedly told the American people that the economy was strong — not simply strong, but that the United States was enjoying one of the strongest economic recoveries in its history.

“America now has the strongest growth, the lowest inflation rate of any major economy in the world,” he said.

“We have the fastest growing economy in the world, the world, the world.”

And near the end of his presidency: “We’re leaving the next President with an inflation rate that’s near 2 percent and an economy stronger than ever.”

There was just one problem: That’s not how millions of Americans felt about the economy.

Read more

The New York Federal Reserve released a research report the other day that included some pretty significant findings on the effect of President Trump’s tariffs on American consumers. The most notable among them was that the inflation we’ve seen on many everyday items, since the beginning of the trade war, has been entirely due to the tariffs.

Not partially, but entirely. Without the tariffs, those items (which included 67 categories of products) would have actually lowered in price to below their prior levels. Instead they saw an inflationary increase of 2.9%.

The study covered economic activity from February of 2025 (when the first tariffs of Trump’s second term were applied) to February of 2026, when the Supreme Court determined the unconstitutionally of Trump’s IEEPA tariffs (the continued effects of which are expected to last until early 2027). It did not include Trump’s latest round of tariffs against Canada (which are further increasing costs for American consumers), nor does it include inflation attributable to the ongoing Iran War.

“The New York Fed’s report offers the clearest evidence yet of the impact of Trump’s tariffs — a core policy of his most recent campaign and second term in the White House — on consumers’ wallets,” reported CNBC’s Alex Harring. “Economists had widely expected his levies to push up prices, though the precise effects had been hard to estimate due to the changing nature of the policy and the lack of transparency on how companies set their prices.”

As high as prices have been, one can only imagine how much worse things would be right now (and in the future) if Trump hadn’t been pressured by bond markets to repeal his most severe tariffs, and the Supreme Court hadn’t ruled against his abuse of the IEEPA.

Trump, of course, was elected in 2024 largely because of Americans’ frustration with high consumer prices under President Biden (most of which were tied to the global economic recovery from the pandemic). What has become increasingly clear, as supported by this study (and several before it), is that the economic relief voters so desperately hoped for back then would have actually arrived… had it not been for Trump’s unilaterally imposed trade war.

When you consider, also, that the trade war hasn’t lived up to any of Trump’s promises (or even his premises), but has managed to add an enormous amount of money to his personal wealth (while alienating a number of U.S. allies and trade partners), it’s no wonder the president’s approval ratings are as dismal as they are. The same goes for the GOP’s midterm prospects (at least according to the polls).

Sure, the midterms are always a referendum on the party of the sitting president, but despite Trump having sidestepped the U.S. Congress entirely by imposing his tariffs through executive actions, congressional Republicans have dirty hands on the issue. Congress could have stopped the trade war before it ever started, or at any time after it began, simply by reclaiming their rightful tariff authority.

Heck, it could have been taken care of in an afternoon.

Instead, out of crippling fear of displeasing the president, the Republican-led Congress has let it go on and on, with Americans literally paying the price for their cowardice. The GOP has even lost its longtime polling advantage as the party Americans most trust to handle the economy. That’s despite a slew of DSA candidates and other Democratic progressives proudly campaigning on their own economically illiterate ideas.

In other words, the Republicans have only themselves to blame. They should have stuck with their free trade principles.

After the midterms, Trump will reach traditional “lame duck” status. At that point, the best thing the U.S. Congress could do for American consumers, as well as our trade partnerships and global economic standing, would be for the parties to work together to further limit and reclaim the president’s tariff authority. This failed, self-enriching experiment needs to end.

Will that actually happen? I’m not optimistic.

Share

The online prediction (betting) sites say Democrats will win both the House and the Senate. I’m curious who YOU think will win both branches of Congress.

Let me know in the polls below…

I’ll announce the results later this week.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

What do you think of the horrifyingly botched attempted execution of Christa Pike? Many death penalty opponents have used the incident as yet another reason to abolish capital punishment altogether. Personally, I think the DP can be justified in the abstract for the most horrendous crimes. I shed no tears for, say, Ted Bundy, or Timothy McVeigh. Yet, I have seen too many discrepancies in its application over the years, to think it’s being used justly in practice.

But I also get really annoyed, to say the least, when anti- DP activists go out of their way to minimize the crimes of people on death row. Pike defenders have focused on how she was only 18 when she murdered Colleen Slemmer in 1995, and how she’s “not the same person now”. Yet, they usually omit that she was actually convicted of attempted murder of another inmate in 2001, and attempted to escape in 2012.

I am personally able to say, I oppose the death penalty as it is currently being practiced, without seeing death row inmates as merely helpless victims of the state. But too many people fall into the trap of woobifying the condemned, who are mostly terrible people. And I really hate how the actual victims, of the criminals, so often get forgotten in these debates. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I’m pretty much where you are on this issue. I oppose the death penalty, but I respect the position of those who disagree. What I don’t respect is the portrayal of those on death row as victims rather than as convicts who committed a terrible crime that victimized others.

For the states that still practice the death penalty (which is their right), there should be no margin of error when it comes to executions. Executions need to be as swift and painless as possible, and of course 100% effective. As many have pointed out, we know, as a people, how to do this. Regardless of how one feels about Canada’s practice of medical euthanasia, they euthanize thousands of citizens every year (at those citizens’ request) without the kind of complications we’ve occasionally seen with prisoner executions in the United States. I’ve also seen the argument that we shouldn’t medicalize the process at all, and go back to firing squads (which Pike had actually requested but was denied, I think by law). That too would be better alternative.

The Republicans have been campaigning very hard against “socialism” for a while now, and yet, when VP Vance was asked this week what socialism actually is, he didn’t know the answer. He finally settled on something about replacing American workers with foreign workers, and boys playing in girls sports. Considering how many socialist policies the Trump administration has been pushing, while they point left and yell “socialism!” has the term become meaningless? — Alex D.

In the realm of American politics, Alex, it has indeed become meaningless.

National Review’s Phillip Klein said it well: “Vance has to redefine socialism as ‘things I oppose’ because if he defined it in terms of its actual economic philosophy, he'd agree with much of it.”

The same is true of Trump, others in the administration, and a good number of Republicans who support them.

Sir John — Ben Shapiro recently posted a video of Tucker Carlson stating basically that Germany should have won WWII and that the Allies should have surrendered. WTAF!? OK yes I knew Tucker Carlson had a few screws loose for a while, but this is utterly mind-boggling! How and what caused him to become so F—-ING WiCkED & STUPID!? Did that demonic attack that he allegedly suffered from awhile back bring on some type of demonic possession!? Seriously! How the HELL is he coming up with this excrement!? —“SUCKER CARLSON!” Regards from The Emperor

There’s been lots of speculation over what’s been behind Tucker Carlson’s descent into darkness, Emperor. Some think he’s being paid by foreign entities to spread such nonsense (of which there’s actually some evidence). Some think it’s purely for attention/engagement. Some think it comes from genuine bigotry that’s been emboldened by the excesses of this political era. I think all (or even a combination of the three) are entirely possible.

I also think it’s important to note that while Tucker has gotten worse over time, he’s been deranged like this for the better part of a decade, including when he was still at Fox News (where he pushed all kinds of insane conspiracy theories, lied routinely, and ran cover for America’s enemies including Vladimir Putin). And yet, many on the political right revered him, deferred to him on serious issues, and let him shape perverse narratives that would become their conventional wisdom. This went on until President Trump publicly dressed him down in the summer of 2025 over Carlson’s criticism of the Trump administration helping Israel against Iran. At which point, many on the right, including Senator Ted Cruz (who was previously scared of getting on Carlson’s bad side), decided it was finally okay to start criticizing him, while pretending Carlson had suddenly changed into a different person (which he hadn’t).

I’m glad that more people, including Ben Shapiro (who’s been great on this), are very comfortable doing it now. But it sure would have been better if they had done it much earlier, and not vilified people (like Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes) who did stand up to Carlson. Because again, Carlson shaped a lot of warped and ugly sentiment on the right (that still exists today).

I’ve been cracking up at your “24” posts. I’d forgotten so much about those early episodes. Who’s your favorite character? — Ben G.

Lol. For those reading this, Ben’s referring to my X posts. I’ve been rewatching the great show, 24 (after my wife goes to bed), and reliving some memorable moments with my social-media peeps.

I know this is the conventional pick, but my favorite character really is Jack Bauer. I’ve been a fan of Kiefer Sutherland since I was a kid, and he was perfect on the show. Chloe’s great too, of course. But I’d forgotten, until I rewatched season 4, how entertaining Richard Heller, the defense secretary’s son, was.

Logan Marshall-Green’s portrayal of him was so over the top, but not in a bad or unconvincing way. It was an early role for Marshall-Green, who went on to become a brilliant (and highly underrated) actor.

For those who’ve never seen The Invitation, I’d high recommend it. He’s very good in Devil too.

John: I know like me you are a fiscal conservative, so this question is probably right in your wheelhouse. The situation in France seems like a harbinger of things to come in the United States. Decades of deficit spending have finally caught up to them (they last had a budget surplus in 1974), and France is having to cut basic services in education. This has led to violent protests, encouraged by French leftist politicians. The same ingredients seem to exist over on this side of the pond: Low social trust, low trust in the government, yet high expectations for cradle-to-grave government services. When the math ain’t mathin’ anymore, you get rioting in the streets. Is this about to happen in the U.S? — Steve R.

It reminds me a lot of the Greek debt crisis, that came to a head in 2009-2010, and continued on for almost a decade (with years of EU bailouts).

And yes, the United States is headed toward a catastrophic debt crisis of its own (we’re really already in it), which will be extremely ugly and extremely painful for millions of Americans when it comes to a head. And when that happens, we’ll have only ourselves to blame, because the crisis has been predicted, and supported by the math, for many years. And we’ve chosen to do nothing to avoid or even soften it. In fact, we’ve carelessly accelerated and deepened it.

By “we,” I’m talking about American voters and both major political parties. The numbers have been on display, for all to see, for a long time. The major drivers of our national debt, by far, are our major entitlement programs. They’re broken because they were made for a different era. They’re in desperate need of reform, and have been for many years. The Democratic Party has long denied this, and has demagogued every Republican effort to deal with the situation. Republicans abandoned the efforts themselves at the behest of Donald Trump, once he became the party’s leader and our president a decade ago. Trump promised to veto any major-entitlement reform legislation, and punish any Republican(s) who tried to pass any such bill. The Republican members of congress who actually took this issue seriously (like Paul Ryan) have been chased out of politics for being insufficiently servile to Trump.

And so now, here we are — racing off the edge of a fiscal cliff, while we focus almost all of our political energy on culture-war battles, and dealing with the excesses of Donald Trump and the woke mob. Congratulations, everyone.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“He’s an air traffic controller on sick leave — traumatic sick leave.”

One of the more memorable decisions of Ronald Reagan’s presidency was his firing of thousands of striking air traffic controllers in August of 1981.

A few months before that happened, as union discussions with the FAA were still ongoing, I covered the stresses faced by air traffic controllers — and one individual in particular — for the CBS Evening News. Back then, as you can probably gather from the report, the job was much more dependent on human interaction.

Read more

On today’s episode, Bernie Goldberg and John Daly talk about increasingly bad news for Republicans in the midterms, taxpayer funded Trump ads, and Democrats politicizing the Cornell legal case.

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

Not that it matters to Donald Trump, but a lot of Americans are not fans.

They don’t like his public vulgarity, his narcissism, his appetite for vengeance — and a lot more. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they have Trump Derangement Syndrome, the catch-all diagnosis his supporters like to apply to anyone who finds him objectionable.

They may have another condition brought on by the president. There’s a good chance they’re suffering from … Trump Fatigue.

I know the symptoms because I have it.

Every day with this president, something new hits the fan. Trump may need a daily dose of chaos, but the rest of us don’t. Chaos and controversy may be his oxygen. They may be what energize him. But after all these years, they’re what wear a lot of us out.

And there’s rarely time to digest one controversy before the next one comes barreling down the road and smacks us in the mouth.

Read more

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

John, isn't the poverty rate being manipulated by the Feds, who adjust the monetary amounts that determine the poverty level? Our president states the poverty level is the lowest it's been in many many decades, but doesn't that depend on where the goalposts are being set? According to DSS, they tell me the Federal Government sets the standards and rates. We are being gaslit with faulty information again. — Sharon H.

I don’t know much about this issue, Sharon, and really don’t want to spend a lot of time researching it. Lol. The charts show that the U.S. poverty rate has been in slow, steady decline for over a decade (other than a brief uptick in 2019/2020), spanning multiple presidencies. Is there some fudging going on, somewhere in the federal calculation? I suppose it’s possible, but I don’t have any real insight I can offer on that.

Sen. Eric Schmitt’s “basketball” perjury accusation toward Jack Smith was one of the most embarrassing things I’ve ever seen during a congressional hearing. 1) Will Schmitt recover politically? 2) What do you make of a bunch of right-wing influencers/commentators having been told ahead of time about the supposed bombshell accusation, and posting about the “gotcha” moment on social media, only to have to later delete the posts in embarrassment. — Alex D.

1. Schmitt will indeed recover from it (probably by Monday of next week), because there is no shame left in today’s politics. Our political leaders can say or do the most embarrassing, discrediting things imaginable, and never pay any price for it (beyond some short-term jokes at their expense). Schmitt was reportedly under consideration by JD Vance as a potential running mate in 2028. Some commentators think the humiliating moment blew Schmitt’s chance of that, but I can’t imagine it did (if there was ever serious consideration over him in the first place). Vance, after all, fueled a made-up story about Haitian immigrants in his home-state stealing people’s cats and dogs and eating them… And now he’s our vice president.

2. There’s a lot of coordination going on behind the scenes between Republican/MAGA politicians (including Trump) and members of the right-wing media (I’m sure the same happens on the left). This particular moment (which included Sean Hannity, Benny Johnson, Mark Levin, and others) perfectly illustrated that. They were locked and loaded to amplify the “perjury” claim (which was already falling apart within minutes), and the details behind it, the second it left Schmitt’s mouth. But like with Schmitt, their embarrassing role in it will be forgotten by Monday (because there’s no shame in the political media either).

Sir John— apparently an Omani co-pilot onboard a FlyDubai Airliner (heading toward Tel Aviv with mostly Israeli passengers) attacked the Captain, stabbing him repeatedly with a pocketknife in an attempted hijacking. Thankfully the Captain was rescued and the attacker was subdued by passengers, and a couple of other pilots who happened to be onboard were able to get control of the plane and prevent a deadly terrorist attack. Well the New York Times described the incident on X as “an altercation” between the co-pilot & the Captain. Critics claimed that The NYT was intentionally downplaying the attempted terrorist attack. The NYT responded that the critics are “activists & partisans” and that it doesn’t report on speculations & uncertainties. Well maybe. I really don’t know since I don’t spend any time on X. What do you think? Was it too early for the NYT to give any pertinent details? Or was it unnecessarily downplayed initially? Your thoughts ? —“Passengers Fly The Unfriendly Skies & WIN” regards from The Emperor

I saw some talk about this online, Emperor, but wasn’t following the NYT headlines and social-media posts in real-time. There are certainly many examples of news organizations playing down stories that are — let’s say — ideologically inconvenient to those reporting them. I would include violence against Israelis as one such category of reporting, especially in contrast with how military defensive action by the Israeli government, against its hostile neighbors, is often portrayed in the news media.

That said, there’s also a fog of war element to live reporting of wild incidents that are either still developing or just happened. The New York Times later argued that they were only reporting the facts they could confirm, as they were coming in, and weren’t going to speculate on what they couldn’t yet confirm. It’s certainly a defensible position, broadly speaking, but without actually being in the NYT newsroom, as the facts were coming in, it’s hard for me to judge the appropriateness of how they chose to cover the story early on.

On a side-note, it’s nothing short of a miracle that the passengers on that plane survived the attack. There were lots of heroes on board, especially the injured pilot.

John: I want to ask you today about income inequality. Bernie Sanders thinks the difference in wealth between top and bottom is a self-evident issue, so much so that he and his cohorts want to massively change the structure of the U.S. economy. I have often thought this issue stems from the sin of envy and is an excuse for a hard left political and economic takeover. What do I care how much money Bill Gates or Elon Musk make, especially if the bottom 20% also continue to raise their standard of living? However, there is some merit to the argument that top income earners and wealth holders bid the price up for housing and other durable and luxury goods. What are your thoughts about the issue of income inequality and basic affordability for the average American? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. Bernie Sanders is pretty much clueless on economic matters (as well as a number of other things). His brand of economic populism (which JD Vance largely subscribes to as well, sadly) is a recipe for enormous failure. Free market capitalism is hardly a perfect system, but it’s provably the best economic system on the planet, and has lifted more people out of poverty, and created more economic prosperity, than any other.

There will always be envy in societies where income inequality (or any inequality) exists, and people like Sanders stoke that envy for political gain. But societies, as a whole, greatly benefit from free market capitalism, free trade, private enterprise, and wealth creators (including those dastardly “rich people”). Such societies enjoy a higher standard of living across the board.

It’s largely the government, not “greedy CEOs,” that put up barriers to economic growth and prosperity that lead to a higher cost, and lower standard, of living. What Trump’s tariffs have done to the cost of goods in this country is a glaring, real-time example of that. And economic populists like Sanders want to create even more barriers… in the name of “fairness.”

No thanks. I’ll take free market capitalism.

I saw that someone on X got REALLY upset that you dared to criticize Obama in your last column (in a single sentence). Why are people still so defensive of that guy? — Ben G.

I’m not sure if you saw my explanation for it on X, Ben, but I’ve talked about it here before too. There are lefties who started following me on X, because, at some point, they saw that I’m critical of Donald Trump. They’re fine with me criticizing him (for pretty much anything). But some of them can’t take criticism (and I mean ANY criticism) of Barack Obama, which I also put out there from time to time. They almost see it as some kind of betrayal, which makes no sense, because:

1. I’m a conservative, and have very different political views than Democrats.

2. I’ve argued quite consistently that I thought Obama was a bad president. I thought it at the time, and I still think it now.

But similar to how many people on the right can’t accept valid criticism of Donald Trump (in large part due to an emotional attachment), many on the left still can’t accept valid criticism of Barack Obama. Some even still insist that criticizing Obama is inherently racist (though this particular commenter didn’t accuse me of that).

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“While you’re sleepin’ I’m creepin’.”

Auto theft was a huge problem in this country in the early 1980s, fueled by auto parts being in short supply. Police were in over their heads on the issue.

I covered the story for the CBS Evening News in late 1981, including one state that was starting to get very serious about the problem.

Read more

In September of 2006, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez stood before the United Nations Assembly in New York City, and launched into a sharp, personal attack on U.S. president George W. Bush.

Chávez, a socialist pseudo-dictator known for using his self-expanded power to punish political opponents and the Venezuelan media, repeatedly called Bush “the devil.” He said Bush smelled of sulfur, and labled him a “donkey,” “war criminal,” and “spokesman of imperialism” (among many other not-so-nice things).

Despite Bush’s approval ratings struggling at the time, many Americans didn’t take kindly to Chávez’s diatribe. It wasn’t just Republicans and conservatives who cried foul. Even some Democratic leaders, including some of Bush’s harshest critics in Washington, rushed to the president’s defense.

“You don’t come into my country, you don’t come into my congressional district, and you don’t condemn my president,” said New York congressman, Charlie Rangel. “George Bush is the president of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning or public attacks against him are viewed by Republicans, Democrats, and all Americans as an attack on all of us.”

Rangel later clarified, “If there’s any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not.”

Nancy Pelosi spoke out as well, saying, “Hugo Chávez fancies himself a modern-day Simón Bolívar, but all he is is an everyday thug.”

The sentiment spread well beyond the Capitol.

Part of the reason Chávez came to the U.S. was to push a propagandistic effort to ingratiate himself with low-income Americans, whom he claimed Bush was neglecting. He offered free heating oil, from Venezuela’s state-owned petroleum company, to remote Alaska Native villages who were expecting a hard winter. It amounted to about 100 gallons per household, which was significant.

Most accepted the oil, but four villages, despite facing a severe fuel shortage and sub-zero temperatures, boldly refused the offer. They cited Chávez’s attack on Bush as the reason, with a spokesman explaining that accepting Chávez’s “gift” would mean “compromising” themselves as Americans.

“As a citizen of this country, you can have your own opinion of our president and our country,” said tribal administrator, Justine Gunderson. “But I don’t want a foreigner coming in here and bashing us.”

“Us” struck me as the key word in that statement.

I personally found the stance so admirable that I joined many other Americans that year in donating to the villages’ oil fund. To me, it wasn’t about defending George W. Bush. It was about, as Rangel and Gunderson described, standing up for American honor. A strongman leader had trashed our president on U.S. soil. Americans were right to be offended, and they were right to speak out against it.

As I’m often reminded these days, times have changed.

Last week, President Trump welcomed Chinese Communist Party leader, Xi Jinping, to the White House. The CCP is, of course, far worse, and far more hostile to the United States and the West, than Chávez’s regime ever was. The Chinese government jails, tortures, and kills domestic critics. They censor speech (including the internet), forbid independent media, and tightly control religion. They run detention camps, and are committing genocide against the Uyghur people. They run the world’s largest state hacking and online-manipulation campaign against the United States, they are the primary source of fentanyl imported into our country, and they are currently supplying the Iranian regime with parts, equipment, and intelligence against U.S. troops and U.S. interests. The list goes on, but you get the point.

Still, I didn’t have an enormous problem with Trump hosting Xi Jinping at the White House, or even rolling out the red carpet and thirstily greeting him on that airport tarmac (though it broke decades of diplomatic protocol and looked pretty embarrassing). What did make me angry, and offended me as an American, were Trump’s perverse antics with Xi Jinping in front of the Presidential Walk of Fame.

Most of you are probably familiar with the “Presidential Walk of Fame” by now. It was one of the early vanity projects of Trump’s second term: a gallery of gold-framed presidential portraits Trump had installed along the West Colonnade of the White House. Contrary to its name, and its view from a distance, the wall is hardly a tribute to our nation’s leaders. It’s instead a running gag for Trump’s personal amusement and self-affirmation. The plaques beneath the portraits include Trump’s personal sentiments toward a number of presidents.

President Obama is described as "one of the most divisive political figures in American History.” President Reagan is falsely depicted a “a fan of President Donald J. Trump.” President Clinton’s plaque includes mention of Trump defeating his wife in 2016. Naturally, President Trump’s own plaques are overflowing with fawning praise of himself. And President Biden? Well, he didn’t even warrant a portrait. Instead, there’s a picture of an autopen above some obligatory “stolen election” nonsense and a slew of other demeaning remarks.

It’s all very stupid and undignified, of course, but there’s a fine line between something being “stupid and undignified” and profoundly un-American. Trump crossed that line when he paused, in front of the cameras, to make a big show out of the “autopen portrait” for Xi Jinping. The two shared a hearty laugh over Biden’s disparagement, which a White House staffer proudly posted on social media (along with a laughter emoji) to commemorate the national disgrace.

And make no mistake about it: it was a national disgrace — a duly elected U.S. president publicly mocking a duly elected U.S. president in front of (and to suck up to) the communist leader of China. And not only did he do it on American soil; he did it at the People’s House.

The butt of the joke wasn’t Joe Biden. It was America.

Like millions of Americans, I thought Biden was a terrible president. I’ve leveled all kinds of criticism at the man. But none of it matters in the context of an enemy (or at least an adversary) of the United States.

Conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg said it well:

The president of the United States is supposed to be a steward of the executive branch, and when conducting foreign affairs, a steward of America. He has an institutional role, which is supposed to have some continuity from president to president — some institutional respect.

We on the political right used to understand this. It’s why so many of us took exception to President Obama’s “apology tour,” and his inclination to blame so many of his political woes on his predecessor (a practice that has only become more popular since then).

Likewise, we understood, as we did with Hugo Chávez, that a foreign adversary insulting our president, especially within our borders, was an insult to our nation.

I still believe that. If you do as well, you should find it abhorrent that a U.S. president would hand-deliver such an insult to a foreign adversary at the White House. If you don’t, I’d love to hear your reasoning.

Share

In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at the language (and double standards) used by some of Israel’s critics.

Share

Read more

Here’s a novel idea in our polarized political culture: Two things can be true at the same time.

Donald Trump can be wrong to punish news organizations whose coverage he doesn’t like. And those same news organizations can be guilty of exactly what the president accuses them of — treating him unfairly.

You don’t have to choose sides. You don’t have to join Team Trump or Team Media. You can believe in a free press without pretending the press is always fair. And you can believe much of the coverage of Donald Trump is biased without believing a president gets to decide which journalists are allowed through the White House gates.

That shouldn’t be complicated. Somehow, these days, it is.

President Trump banned CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, accusing them of spreading “FAKE NEWS.” He said the action wasn’t an assault on the free press, which he claimed he cherishes, but an assault on fake news — something he described as “corrupt, purposeful, pervasive” and a threat to national security.

That’s Trump being Trump. He doesn’t merely criticize. He goes nuclear.

But there’s a much more important issue here than presidential hyperbole. The government doesn’t get to punish news organizations because the president doesn’t like what they report or how they report it. And now a federal judge has temporarily blocked the ban and ordered the White House to restore access to the three organizations.

That’s as it should be. A president doesn’t get to hand out constitutional protections only to journalists who treat him nicely. A free press has to be free to criticize the president — even if it’s unfairly.

And that brings us to the part of this story that much of the mainstream press would rather not talk about.

CNN and MS NOW — I’m leaving Politico out of this because I don’t follow it closely enough to make a judgment — really are relentlessly negative in their coverage of Donald Trump.

That doesn’t mean they routinely get their facts wrong. But journalism can be factually accurate and still be unfair.

Bias isn’t only about putting something on the air that isn’t true. It’s also about what stories get covered and which ones don’t. It’s about which guests get invited on, which questions get asked, how much time is devoted to a controversy, and whether one side gets an open microphone while the other side is barely heard from.

Watch CNN or MS NOW for any length of time and you’ll see plenty of Democratic members of Congress invited on to tell viewers what’s wrong with Donald Trump — while liberal journalists sit there like potted plants. But, yes, Presidents deserve scrutiny, and Trump supplies journalists with plenty to scrutinize.

But where’s the balance?

When Trump does something these networks believe is wrong — and, yes, a lot of the time they have a legitimate case — they play it big. When he does something that might reflect well on him, the enthusiasm for saturation coverage has a funny way of disappearing. So they downplay, or flat-out ignore, news that makes the president look good.

Is that illegal? No.

Is it journalism at its best? I don’t think so.

And this is where both sides could benefit from a little self-examination.

Donald Trump would be better off if he weren’t so thin-skinned. Presidents have enormous power. Journalists don’t work for them, and criticism comes with the job. Trying to use government power to stifle unfavorable coverage isn’t how a free country is supposed to operate.

But journalists might also benefit from climbing down from the moral high ground every once in a while.

Whenever conservatives complain about liberal media bias, too many journalists react as if the accusation itself is ridiculous — just another right-wing grievance dreamed up by people who don’t appreciate courageous journalism.

Maybe instead of automatically circling the wagons, they could ask an uncomfortable question: Is there anything to the criticism?

There often is.

What I find especially galling is the sanctimony of CNN, a news operation that can suffocate you with its self-importance. CNN ran story after story on the ban but refused to acknowledge its role — that of partisan player, one that routinely downplays Democratic failures — like Joe Biden’s disastrous open border policy — while playing up anything and everything his successor has done wrong.

Bias against Republicans isn’t a figment of the conservative imagination. Still, that doesn’t mean every journalist is a Democratic operative with a press pass — even though more than a few act as if they were. It doesn’t mean negative stories about Trump are necessarily wrong. And it certainly doesn’t give a president the right to retaliate against news organizations.

It means something much simpler: Journalists are human beings. They have blind spots. They have political and cultural assumptions. And when enough people in the same profession share those assumptions, bias can become so routine that the people practicing it don’t even recognize it as bias. And yes, some journalists just plain loathe this president and don’t care if they’re fair or not.

But journalists aren’t the only ones with blind spots. Despite what his critics may think, Trump is human too. So he wants to get even with his perceived enemies — and his answer is to punish the press.

The press’s answer too often is to pretend there’s nothing about itself worth criticizing.

Neither response inspires much confidence.

A president who respects the First Amendment should tolerate journalism he considers unfair. And journalists who expect the public to trust them should be willing to ask whether, sometimes, the president has a point.

Both things can be true at the same time.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

Fox News is now running literal campaign ads for Donald Trump that are “Paid for by the U.S Government.” How is this possibly legal? — Alex D.

First of all, you aren’t kidding about it being a campaign ad, Alex. It’s not some PSA message (contrary to what some are saying). It is irrefutably a political campaign ad for Trump himself, featuring his image over and over again, his campaign slogans, supposed political achievements, people praising him, and women singing “love me” a bunch of times. And yes, the caption at the end says it was paid for by the U.S. Government (aka U.S. taxpayers).

For those who haven’t seen the commercial, here it is:

This shouldn’t need to be said, but I’ll say it anyway: This is a completely unethical use of taxpayers’ money, and it should bother every self-respecting American that the federal government is doing this. As for whether it’s illegal, I’m guessing it probably is (based on the Hatch Act). Lawyers are probably already looking into it.

John, sorry for the longer question today. I want to return to the subject of “banned books”, something we have discussed before in this space, because I continue to see it in local bookstore news. “Banned books” seems to be one more term whose definition is intentionally expanded by the left in an effort to be more empowered in their victimhood. The usual understanding of book bans comes from Nazi Germany, where the Nazis began a campaign of extreme censorship in the 1930’s to erase all ideas opposed to fascist ideology. This took the form of public book burnings and outlawing the ownership of certain publications. The 21st Century definition now includes books that are either removed or not allowed in school libraries due to their age appropriateness. To me, this is discretion and not censorship. If I can freely pick up a book at Barnes & Noble or order it from Amazon, it’s not "banned". When I was in high school, a group of friends and I were gathered around a Sports Illustrated when a librarian became suspicious and asked us what we were reading. When she realized it was the SI Swimsuit Edition, she took it from us. Nobody thought our rights were being violated; we just thought we were getting away with something. As a professional writer, what are your thoughts? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. There are some conservatives I very much respect (including Jonah Goldberg) who get really bent out of shape over the “Banned Books” section in bookstores (I’ve teased Jonah about this). I don’t disagree with their reasoning (some of which you described above), and I agree that it is indeed false phrasing, but I guess don’t see it in as nefarious terms as others do. I think it’s largely just a cheap and tacky marketing strategy to sell books.

John DAiLY, how could you say this?: “Trump himself clearly doesn't even care about [the midterms].” President Trump will be campaigning next two months to WIN. — Conrad P.

Because, my dear Conrad, if President Trump were truly worried about the GOP losing congressional majorities, he wouldn’t have endorsed (as he has many times over the years) highly problematic primary candidates (like Ken Paxton) over stronger and safer general-election candidates (like incumbent John Cornyn). His super PAC wouldn’t be withholding hundreds of millions of pledged campaigned dollars from Republican congressional candidates. He wouldn’t be forcing the needless continuation of high consumer prices with his ridiculous trade policies (which have lost Republicans their long-standing polling advantage on the economy). He wouldn’t be shamelessly profiting off the presidency to the tune of billions of dollars, and directing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to his personal vanity projects (which further torches the Republican brand, and highlights the party’s refusal to hold him accountable for anything). He also wouldn’t be cozying up to, praising, and normalizing Zohran Mamdani, who many congressional Republicans and their campaigns have made the face of their opposition.

I’ve never heard a compelling case that Trump genuinely cares about the Republican Party (beyond it being loyal to him). What he cares about is Donald Trump.

Oh, and if Trump were truly worried about a socialist takeover of the country (as you and he insist he is), he wouldn’t be governing as the most socialist president of my lifetime (as demonstrated by him taking government stakes in dozens of private companies, massive tariffs, corporate welfare, price controls, $5,000 “dividend” checks, export bans, etc.).

Sir John: Donald Trump was addressing the UN and he mentioned that he is conflicted about what to do about the Iran war situation. He wonders if the IRGC will come to their senses and make an historic deal with him and make Iran great again, or should he blow them to smithereens. Trump says he won’t make that decision until after the midterm elections. He added that the Iranians need to realize that no matter what happens during the midterms, Trump is still going to be president. Well, OK but that doesn’t solve the problem NOW which I believe that I & many Americans want solved. Why doesn’t he solve the situation now, and be done with it and blow them to smithereens since the IRGC members don’t want to make a deal with him? Seriously what does Trump hope to accomplish by waiting until after the midterms when the Republicans will probably get shellacked anyway? Doesn’t Trump realize that the IRGC is counting on Democrat victories to thwart any of Trump’s plans for victory over the IRGC? —“Hit Or Get Off The Pot” Regards from The Emperor

It’s often a challenge, Emperor, to try and make sense of President Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks, so I’ll address the broader points here…

The timing of the midterms shouldn’t have anything to do with our Iran strategy. If Trump’s consciously holding off on employing something until after the midterms, that would likely mean that that “something” would make the Republican Party even less popular than they currently are. (That said, I again don’t think Trump cares much about the GOP congress, nor the Republican Party as a whole).

As far as “blowing them to smithereens,” it’s sometimes hard to tell if Trump is referring to the Iranian regime or the entire country of Iran (he seems to go back and forth on that). If he’s talking about the latter (which won’t happen), that would obviously be psychotic and amount to massive war crimes. If he’s talking about the former, it’s easier said than done, because what’s left of the regime is quite scattered throughout the country (for their own survival). Airstrikes alone aren’t going to bring regime change in Iran (which doesn’t seem to have ever been the plan in the first place). Regime change would require ground troops and/or arming Iranian opposition (which is still reeling from earlier this year). And thus far, Trump hasn’t had the appetite for that.

Good point on the Reagan podcast this week about JD Vance sharing many of the same views as Michael Moore 20 years ago. I’d never thought of that, but both economically and on foreign policy, he sure does! — Ben G.

Thanks. They assuredly have differences on social issues, but there’s A LOT about today’s Right that lines up closely with yesterday’s (and even today’s) Left. Vance is an especially good example. A lot of people just haven’t noticed it, because ideological differences have been replaced with reflexive tribalism.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

“B-I-N-G-O spells money — big money.”

In the late 1970s, the Seminole Native American Tribe opened a high-stakes bingo hall on its reservation in Broward County, Florida. The county’s sheriff, Robert Butterworth (no relation to the syrup icon), threatened to enforce Florida’s bingo statue on the reservation, which limited the cash prizes given out to players (a rule that applied to competing bingo ventures throughout the state, which provided the Seminole Tribe with a significant competitive advantage).

I covered the story for the CBS Evening News in August of 1981.

Sheriff Butterworth, by the way, would go on to lose multiple legal battles in his quest to regulate Seminole Bingo, including with the Supreme Court.

Read more

On today’s episode, Bernie Goldberg and John Daly talk about Trump’s media ban, movement in the midterms, the Bo French controversy, the Triumphal Arch, and the Iran War.

Show Notes:

• Subscribe to Bernie’s YouTube Channel

• Give the gift of a BernardGoldberg.com paid subscription

Subscribe now

Share

At the GOP convention in Dallas earlier this month, Vice President JD Vance pretty much summed up the Republican strategy for the midterms — and it comes down to this: Whatever you think of us … the other side is worse.

Here’s how he put it: “It’s the party of common sense beating the party of the crazies.”

Democrats probably wouldn’t take issue with that — except they think theirs is the party of common sense and Republicans are the crazies.

Vance, along with everybody else, knows that things look bleak for Republicans as the midterms approach. The president’s party almost always loses seats in Congress — and this time around, the Mr. Trump’s approval numbers are at record lows.

So what Vance is trying to do by telling voters that they’re taking a great big chance if they vote for Democrats … is try to minimize what looks like the inevitable damage. Online prediction markets says Democrats have an almost 90 percent chance of taking control of the House — and a better than 50 percent chance to winning the Senate.

Read more

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

This $5000 “carrot” that Trump floated comes off to me as nothing more than a grandiose, BS, campaign promise like every other politician. And no, I don’t like it. The other thing is, how is this any different than Biden promising to pay off student loan debt.

To me, they are both “vote buying”. And again, I despise it. As always, I could be wrong. But I’m independent, so objectively, that’s my take on it. Every White House lies. And Politicians, especially in an election year, are prone to say anything. I rely on John and Bernie to sort things out. So I always appreciate that!!!! — Rob O.

Hi Rob. As I’ve argued, I do think it’s very similar to Biden’s student-debt forgiveness efforts — just more brazen in the rhetoric, because Trump is making it purely conditional on Republicans maintaining congressional majorities. But I’ve also argued that it’s assuredly not going to happen. Aside from this being at least the fourth time Trump has promised “stimulus” or “dividend” checks to Americans in his second term alone, the condition he laid out this time — of the Republicans maintaining the House — has virtually no chance of being met.

Of note, Bill O’Reilly said [Trump’s $5,000 promise] is not a bribe because the recipients don’t have to do anything, i.e. there’s no quid pro quo. REALLY? Does Mr. O’Reilly think his base viewers are that stupid? Or maybe he thinks they’ll want to believe his remark so much that they’ll accept it without question? Or maybe Mr. O’Reilly is willfully dense when it comes to his old buddy Donald Trump.

He promised that at the so-called Mid-Term Convention when he was urging the audience - those in attendance especially but also viewers and those getting their info from right-wing screechers - to not only vote Republican but to canvass for Republicans and, yes, to vote more than once. Although on this last statement, his hardcore supporters will say “he was only joking.” But he’s the President of the United States delivering a primetime speech!

Although those included in his bribe were those not voting Republican, obviously for the Republicans to win the mid-terms there’d have to be collective and feverous activity.

If the bigwigs in the Democratic Party leap tall buildings to deliver the mid-terms to the Republicans, will President Trump’s hardcore supporters say “He was only joking” when he reneges on his promise? — Bob H.

The generic, widely-accepted definition of the word “bribe” is:

a payment or reward offered to influence a person's behavior or decision.

Personally, I think that applies very well to this situation (as it did to Biden’s student-loan forgiveness efforts). Trump is offering a direct payment to voters, contingent on Republicans holding congressional majorities, to influence those voters to vote for Republicans in the midterms. If someone would rather not use the word “bribe” to describe such a thing, I guess I don’t care much… as long as they’re politically consistent with it.

As for what would happen if Republicans held both a House and Senate majority (the odds of that are almost nothing), and Trump didn’t deliver on his promise, I think his hardcore supporters would just shrug it off, and carry on like he never said it in the first place. Trump has reneged on all kinds of promises, and his supporters never seem to mind.

Sir John, according to this video, two U.S. teens in Alamo, Texas were on their way to enlist in the U. S. Marine Corps; they even had their papers with them. Allegedly they began recording an ICE encounter with someone else. ICE agents eventually caught up to them and brutally assaulted and detained them while blatantly ignoring their proof that they were on their way to enlist in the USMC. After this encounter, the teens are now understandably reconsidering their plans to enlist. The usual suspects in the media (specifically Telemundo & The New Republic) are of course painting this as another example ICE “Gestapo” promoting the white supremacy of the Trump Administration. On the one hand, if this reporting is totally accurate, then the rogue ICE agents must face justice for this abuse! On the other hand, stories such as this (like that hoax about the old man getting picked up by ICE and being deported to El Salvador while he attempted to renew his green card) seem tailor made for leftist media. Do you know anything about this story? Can you share some light on it? —“Dishonorable Intentions In Texas” Regards from The Emperor

Emperor, whenever you begin a question with “according to this video,” a little bit of me dies inside. Lol.

No, I don’t know anything about the story. But I do know that random people can and do post misleading or unsubstantiated takes on YouTube, and make money off the attention they receive. Thus, I don’t use YouTube as a reliable news source.

Some say Bill O'Reilly makes efforts on his NSN to humanize Pres. Trump much more than Trump deserves; one example being he states our president doesn't want to send ground troops in Iran because he doesn't want to kill Iranians. In your opinion, are some attempting to "humanize" Trump far beyond reality? ICE has been accused of human rights violations and he, Trump, has no problem with ICE tactics or abuses. He won't mandate body cams- that speaks volumes. — Sharon H.

Broadly speaking, Sharon, pro-Trump commentators have been doing this type of thing, on a routine basis, for the last ten years. Few want to acknowledge to their pro-Trump audience that our president’s decisions are largely based on self-interest and often even whims, because that would be an admission that he’s a shallow figure, and poor leader, who almost always puts himself before the country. And that would hurt the MAGA mythology.

Thus, the inclination has been to twist and bend Trump’s decisions into artificial alignment with some ideological or moral framework, to make them appear noble and provident (when they’re often not).

In regard to this specific issue, I don’t think Trump’s reluctance to use ground troops in Iran has anything to do with the sanctity of life. Like you, I haven’t seen much evidence of him being a humanitarian. I think he just wants this conflict to be over, because it’s making him look bad, and sending in ground troops would be a significant escalation of the conflict. Trump has made very clear (in his own words) that he believed the military operation in Iran would go down similarly to how the one in Venezuela did: a quick removal of the top leadership, and the rest of the regime just kind of falling in line to play nice with the United States. But that was never going to happen, unfortunately, and so tougher decisions have been called for.

How am I not supposed to laugh at commenters who claim you’re not a conservative, while they simultaneously defend Trump’s leftist income-redistribution ideas, trade wars, and other socialist policies? — Ben G.

Feel free to laugh, Ben. It really is absurd. But I find it more sad that funny. It’s clear such people have no idea what conservatism and socialism even are.

Did you ever think you’d hear an FBI Director advocating for the right of a human “victim” of bestiality to become an FBI agent? Lol — Alex D.

No, but it sadly didn’t feel out of place in today’s politics.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.