The ongoing demise of the establishment.

Texas Republicans have sent a clear signal. They want results.

In earlier times, the senior Republican senator from Texas could have held his seat for as long as he wanted. But John Cornyn, first elected to the Senate in 2002 after having garnered 77 percent in the Republican primary that year, just lost to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton by a staggering 25 points.

Unthinkable as recently as 2020, when Cornyn enjoyed an approval rating of 62 percent according to a UT Tyler/Dallas Morning News poll.

And further hard to imagine considering that Ken Paxton has more personal and political baggage than an airport bag claim carousel. You can be certain that Democrats will do all they can to exploit that fact in the November general election against James Talarico, who is going to have a mountain of out of state, big donor cash supporting him and against whom victory by Ken Paxton is by no means certain. The attack ads against Paxton are going to be vicious.

I may be wrong but here’s my back of the envelope analysis. When the history of this election is eventually written, the fact that GOP senators failed to pass President Trump’s SAVE America Act – the bill that would require proof of citizenship and a government-issued ID in order to vote – may emerge as the decisive event that doomed John Cornyn’s reelection. The SAVE Act is a prime example of an 80/20 issue (as in 80 percent of voters in favor of passage) that Senate Republicans can’t seem to get done. (You’ll recall that they promised to repeal Obamacare if we would only vote them into the majority, which we did. Yet Obamacare lives on.)

Trump-supporting Republicans, now the majority of the party, have had it.

The SAVE Act failure was primarily because Senate Majority Leader John Thune, along with other Republican senators (but notably not John Cornyn), were unwilling to kill the filibuster so that the SAVE Act might pass on a simple majority vote.

I understand that reluctance. The filibuster has endured for as long as it has because both parties at one time appreciated its role in putting the brakes on heat-of-the-moment legislation.

But I also understand that if today’s far more radical Democrats ever retake control of the Senate, they will kill the filibuster about ten seconds after the swearing-in ceremony concludes. If that takeover ever happens to coincide with Democrats regaining control of the House of Representatives – and please note the thin GOP majorities in both chambers – statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, accompanied by an expansion of the Supreme Court to 13 justices, will quickly follow.

One shudders.

John Cornyn was a largely very reliable vote for Trump’s agenda. But he suffers from being seen as an establishment Republican in a time when Republican voters are sick to here with the establishment standing in the way of getting the things voters want done.

That may not be fair to Cornyn. But no one ever said that politics is fair.

Cynicism of the highest order.

On January 20, 2025 – just hours before President Joe Biden was to leave office – it was announced that he had issued a pre-emptive pardon to Dr. Anthony Fauci.

You remember Lord Fauci. He was the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. “I am the science,” he once said to an interviewer. In his role as head of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, he drove an entire nation into what amounted to house arrest.

To “stop the spread,” schools and churches were closed, the elderly died alone in nursing homes, uncomforted by family, small businesses were forced to close, and tens of millions of nominally free American citizens had to give up their livelihoods.

“Two weeks to flatten the curve” turned into two years of economic and social devastation. Small independent retailers and mom & pop restaurants were forced to shut down. They went out of business. But Target and Wal-Mart got to stay open. Their stock prices soared. Many of the former owners of the small businesses that were shut down now face their retirement years with little to get them by.

Young children who were kept from going to kindergarten and early elementary school are now teenagers and a huge percentage of them are behind academically and will likely never catch up.

Fauci had us maintaining six feet of social distancing while walking around with dirty masks on our faces in an affront to epidemiological science.

And it was his Lordship Anthony Fauci who convinced President Trump to fast track the development of mRNA vaccines in an effort that got dubbed “Operation Warp Speed.”

“Fine,” we all said.

But here’s what’s now coming to light that’s not fine.

For the drug makers to develop The Jab they demanded protection from product liability. Under the rules, to get that protection, the drugs would have to be deployed under an Emergency Use Authorization – EUA – from the Food & Drug Administration. But to get an EUA, there could be no other “approved, adequate and available” therapies.

The problem was that there was plenty of evidence that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin – two readily available and inexpensive drugs with long use histories – were quite effective at treating COVID when administered early in the course of the disease.

The government spent more than $30 billion on The Jab. Drug makers Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, in turn, paid hundreds of millions in royalties to Fauci’s agency to license government-owned technology in their development. There are persistent but admittedly unproven rumors that Fauci profited personally from some of those payments. We’ll never know.

What we do know is that Fauci aggressively and often ruthlessly set out to crush any use of HCQ and ivermectin, their low risk and demonstrated effectiveness be damned.

What we’ll also never know is how many people died needlessly because Fauci quashed an inexpensive and low risk therapy in an apparent attempt to further his empire.

But what we always will know is that the Biden administration thought that he needed a pardon.

The national debt is bad. But state debt may be even worse.

What do the following states have in common? California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Pennsylvania.

There are three correct answers. First, they are all deep blue states that have been under the control of Democrats for decades (OK, Colorado went blue fairly recently). Second, they all run huge budget deficits. And third, they’re all in serious debt.

On average these states owe $18,800 for every citizen living in them. That per capita debt is rising every year.

To put that in perspective, the per capita in deep red Texas is only $4,500. In now even deeper red Florida, it’s a thousand dollars less.

Politicians in these blue states have figured out that they can buy today’s votes – and thus gain the power and perks of office – with tomorrow’s money. Tomorrow being when the sovereign debt that they incur for lavish, vote-buying social spending has to be repaid.

Since they won’t be in office when the bill comes due, it’s essentially free money.

It gets worse. The social programs funded by all this borrowing are almost always poorly managed and almost always fall far short of addressing whatever the problem was that led to their creation.

But wait, it gets worse still. Massive social programs are magnets for massive fraud. Here’s an example. Though the problem was known as far back as 2022, the story of staggering fraud surrounding an organization called, “Feeding Our Future” in Minnesota became national headline news in late 2025. Staggering is too weak an adjective. Mind bending might be better.

Feeding Our Future was what is called a “sponsor organization” whose purported purpose was to use government funding to provide meals to children living in poverty, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. But instead of feeding children, the organization submitted bills to the government to the tune of about $9 billion for meals that were never provided. The money went to Feeding Our Future principals who instead used it to buy luxury homes, commercial real estate, cars and jewelry. And, because the whole thing was run by Somali immigrants, a lot of the money also wound up being offshored to Somalia where it is credibly alleged to have funded terrorism.

Fallout from the Minnesota story became the catalyst for exposing similar fraud schemes in New York, Illinois and elsewhere.

The United States of America is $39 trillion in debt. That is a real problem and bad on its face.

But the debt burdens being carried by deep blue states could actually be worse. There is no mechanism in the Constitution or under federal law by which a state can declare bankruptcy. If a state can’t pay its sovereign debt, there’s no way to fix it.

And when more than 100 percent of a state’s tax revenue is soaked up by debt service, who do you guess will suffer first and suffer most?

If you guessed the poor who are dependent on the debt-funded government programs that politicians used to buy their votes, you guessed correctly.

The clearest possible illustration.

Why is it that nominally well-educated people can’t look at a set of observable facts and come to a logical conclusion? Observable facts are all around us. Yet logical conclusions remain elusive.

A clear example of observable facts can be seen in the influx of Californians moving to Texas. By the thousands lifelong citizens of the Golden State are coming to the Lone Star State. If you doubt me, drive around Dallas, and look at the volume of high-rise residential construction – both condos and apartments.

People from California aren’t coming to Texas for the pleasant summertime weather. They’re coming because of the massive dysfunction of California brought about by decades of leftist policy.

I’m bringing up California because the governor’s race in that state is in the news. Because of the unusual way that California conducts its primary elections – and I won’t spend the time to explain it here – a Republican has a plausible shot at becoming the next governor, replacing far-left pretty boy Gavin Newsom. (Newsom, for his part, wants to be the Democrats’ nominee for president in 2028.)

California, once the most beautiful, most prosperous, and most envied state in the Union, is a hot mess. Taxes in California are among the highest in the nation, yet the state’s roads are crumbling, its schools are failing, its big cities are degenerating, the state is essentially insolvent, the middle class is heading for the exits and an astonishing number of those left behind are living on the streets.

Astonishing indeed. California is the homeless capital of the nation. Nearly a quarter of all the homeless people in the entire country live there. Compare to Texas, the next most populous state, where fewer than four percent of the nation’s homeless live.

And as much as Democrats will try to make it so, none of this is Donald Trump’s fault. Trump has held one elective office two times for a combined total of just over five years. The last time that Republicans had a majority in the California legislature was 1970. The last Republican governor was Arnold Schwarzenegger, who left office in 2011 (and barely counts as a Republican anyway).

Decades of Democrat policies have brought once great California to the brink and yet no Democrat and no one in the leftist dominated media ever connects the dots.

When Lyndon Johnson began promoting his liberal Great Society programs in the mid 1960s, the debate was largely abstract. Big-government welfare at such scale had never been tried before.

But 60 years later we have hard data. The Great Society was a failure. The poverty rate of 2026 is little changed from the poverty rate of 1966. Yet poverty today is, perversely, even more deeply entrenched than it was when the Great Society launched.

Six decades of experience now shows that liberal, big-government programs not only don’t solve problems, they most often make the problems they set out to solve worse.

California – once the wealthiest, most envied state in the Union – is the clearest possible illustration.

Unforgivable.

Donald Trump is a polarizing figure. (In other news, it gets hot in Texas in the summer.)

More than any recent president, Donald Trump evokes a visceral reaction among a large proportion of voters. Millions of people – disproportionately concentrated in coastal states – despise the man.

A big reason is his outsized, brash personality that is unlike that of any politician in our time. Since the 2015 escalator ride that kicked off his first campaign, we have observed his penchant for incendiary statements, insulting personal attacks and often outlandish exaggeration. To a significant degree, Donald Trump himself has contributed to much of the animus against him. (To be fair, many of these characteristics have been greatly muted in his second term.)

But for my money, one of the biggest and most consistent contributors to Trump hatred is the corrupt and fundamentally dishonest legacy media. Shrinking in size, scope and influence as the legacy media are, a meaningful percentage of Americans still rely solely on the likes of ABC, CBS, NBC, et. al. for their news. In the same way that the diet of a college kid is carb heavy, the news diet of a legacy media consumer is agenda heavy. Members of the legacy media almost to a person see it as their civic and sacred duty not to merely report on what Donald Trump does and allow readers and viewers to form their own conclusions. They see themselves instead as specially charged with saving the republic from him. Example: If Trump vigorously prosecutes attacks on Iran, the media says he’s a “war criminal.” If he extends a ceasefire, they say he’s a “TACO” (i.e. Trump Always Chickens Out.)

The once-trusted legacy media are using the last shards of the credibility they once enjoyed to intentionally and shamelessly lie about Trump, his policies and his accomplishments.

And there’s a key word: accomplishments. They are many.

Since taking office for his second term, Trump has essentially stopped illegal immigration. Not slowed it down. Stopped it. It’s a campaign promise kept.

Another campaign promise: energy independence. The president has unleashed the American oil & gas industry in way that is completely reshaping the world geopolitical landscape for the long term in America’s favor. (It’s worth noting that in times not so long past, a war in Iran and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz wouldn’t have simply caused gas prices to go up, as has happened. There would have been gasoline lines.)

Some agenda-laden reporting to the contrary notwithstanding, very soon Trump will have completed the neutralization of a terroristic, nuclear weapons-seeking Iran – a regime that vexed seven prior administrations while holding the entire world hostage.

All of this while lowering the tax burden on every single American taxpayer.

There’s more, but space doesn’t permit.

The real knock on Trump boils down to this. The man has had the temerity to actually take on and solve problems that establishment politicians – of both parties – merely fundraise on.

In the realm of high-level Washington politics, that’s simply unforgivable.

A war of words.

President Trump and Pope Leo XIV are in a war of words over the war in Iran. It’s the most open dispute between an American president and a Roman pontiff that anyone can remember.

Without calling him by name, the pope has been sharply critical of Trump. While on a visit to Cameroon the pope spoke of a world, “ravaged by a handful of tyrants.” The statement is widely believed to be specifically referencing the president.

In a social media post, the pope said, “God does not bless any conflict.” Immediately following the beginning of hostilities on February 28, the pope said that peace comes, “…not through weapons but through dialogue.”

For his part the president has specifically named the pope in his responses. In trademark fashion, he has pushed back hard on the pontiff, saying in a Truth Social post, “Pope LEO is WEAK on crime and terrible for Foreign Policy.”

The pope’s defenders – which includes what is likely a majority of U.S. Catholic bishops – are saying that Pope Leo’s criticism of the Iran war is nothing more or less than the sum of Catholic teaching about war.

I believe that position deserves closer examination.

Such examination begins with the stipulation that a Roman pontiff is going to condemn war. That should surprise no one. But such condemnation then begs the question, “Where has Pope Leo so outspokenly condemned the known atrocities of the Iranian regime?” Oh, he frequently calls for respect for human dignity and fundamental human rights; i.e. papal boilerplate – the rhetoric of every pope.

But if Leo has as pointedly called out Iran as he has the United States and Donald Trump, I can’t find it (and neither can ChatGPT, because I asked when I could find nothing on my own).

As to the pope’s condemnation being consistent with Catholic teaching regarding war, let’s examine the writings of revered Catholic theologian and priest, St. Thomas Aquinas. In his late 13^th century opus Summa Theologica, Thomas says that war is justified when it is waged by a sovereign nation in defense of a common good and when the good intended outweighs the evil of war.

With respect to the war in Iran, I’d say check, check and check.

The U.S. is preventing nuclear weapons from coming into the hands of a nation that is openly relentless in its pursuit of having them. Preventing a regime like that of Iran, with its clear and undisputed record of terrorism, mass murder and evil, is to my eye, a rather straightforward exercise in the defense of a common good.

As to peace coming via dialogue rather than weapons, the president tried that. It went nowhere. U.S./Iranian dialogue accomplished nothing other than to provide the forum for Iran to proudly and unapologetically boast of its possession of about a thousand pounds of uranium that could be enriched to weapons grade in less than two weeks.

And finally, there’s this.

Dialogue did not save the world from the evils of Adolf Hitler. That effort required weapons.

A good week for a good nation.

At RealClearPolitics.com on Thursday, Ben Shapiro made a brilliant point. It’s one you won’t see made anywhere in the “mainstream media.” (Will someone please explain to me why we keep using that term?)

FROM THE ARCHIVES: “How are these people “mainstream?”

In his article, Shapiro observes that in the same week the United States has waged war in Iran with precision, technological prowess and profound impact in a way that, as he says, “…looks like something written for a Hollywood script;” while also sending human beings into space farther from Earth than ever in the 65-year history of human spaceflight (which, as it happens, we will mark on Sunday, April 12).

In both cases, the United States made it look easy. In both cases, it’s anything but.

This, says Shapiro, is what a superpower looks like. He’s right.

On the Iran war front, the United States has clearly demonstrated a capacity to deliver offensive force with surgical precision and devastating consequence. We have shown that enemy forces and their malign leaders can be precisely tracked and eliminated. In this conflict, Iran had at its disposal air defense systems provided by Russia and China that are the very best non-U.S. defense systems in the world. Yet they proved nearly worthless when put to the test against the forces of the United States.

Such capability facilitates maximum military advantage with minimum impact on civilian lives. Don’t think that Putin and Xi haven’t noticed. They have.

America’s current military capability again illustrates something I have said for decades.

No nation in history has ever amassed more power and yet been so restrained in its use.

The United States if it chose to do so could dominate the world. That is precisely what powerful nation states have done for most of human history. But not so this country.

In its 250-year history, for all its admitted faults, imperfections and missteps, the United States to an astonishing degree has eschewed empire and conquest and has instead limited its use of its military power to the defense of peace.

And that bring us to the Artemis II circumlunar mission – the first manned lunar mission since Apollo 17 in December 1972. As I write this, the spacecraft with its four astronauts is on its way to a Pacific Ocean splashdown a little after seven o’clock Friday evening Texas time. Assuming a safe splashdown, the mission has been a massive success. The Orion spacecraft has been very nearly flawless. (The only real anomaly was in connection with the on-board toilet.)

In the 1960s, the race to the moon was between the United States, a nation rooted in individual liberty, and the Soviet Union, a nation rooted in authoritarianism and oppression. The U.S. won that race and the Soviet Union eventually collapsed. National prestige can shape a nation’s destiny.

Today, China replaces the Soviets in what is essentially the same contest. National prestige is again on the line and again plays the same role.

So, with all that in mind, Ben Shapiro is right. America has had a good week.

It mattered then. It matters now.

I remember Christmas Eve 1968 like no other Christmas Eve in my life. I was a young boy at the time. Apollo 8, the first ever manned space mission to leave Earth orbit, was orbiting the moon.

The world was following the story, and more than a billion people worldwide were watching that Christmas Eve as the crew conducted a live telecast from the Apollo command module.

As the telecast was concluding, astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and Bill Anders stunned the world when they began reading from the first chapter of the Book of Genesis. Aside from Borman, Lovell and Anders themselves, no one knew it was coming. Not NASA management. Not the flight controllers in the Mission Operations Control Room. It was a complete surprise.

And it had seismic impact.

That telling of the creation story – by men who were experiencing a perspective on creation in a way like no human in all of history – was riveting. And in that moment – the end of the awful year 1968 in which the Vietnam War raged, riots plagued major American cities and Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were both assassinated – was somehow yet redeemed.

As the story goes, when the crew returned home to Houston, mission commander Frank Borman received a telegram from an anonymous sender saying simply, “Thank you. You saved 1968.”

Fifty-eight years later, and for the first time since December 1972, a manned American mission is again on its way to the moon on a mission profile remarkably similar to that of Apollo 8. Apollo 8 flew 10 orbits around the moon to test the spacecraft in deep space and to validate navigation, crew systems and reentry and recovery procedures – all with an eye toward a future lunar landing mission.

Three American astronauts and one Canadian astronaut are aboard the Artemis II mission in a spacecraft that borrows heavily from the Apollo flight hardware and their mission objectives are nearly identical. The only real difference is that Artemis will slingshot around the moon and immediately head back home, rather than decelerating into lunar orbit.

Though a creation story moment is unlikely on this mission, I nevertheless hope that a successful mission might restore some pride in American accomplishment. Great nations dare to do great things purely for greatness’s sake.

In the 1960s, the world was watching the United States and the Soviet Union – two nations with diametrically opposed views regarding individual and economic freedom – to see which of the two could muster the political, scientific and engineering resources necessary to lead the way in space.

Six decades later, the contest is between the United States and China. And again, the world is watching to see which nation will emerge as the leader.

It mattered then. It matters now. A nation’s prestige has a great deal to do with its ability to shape world events.

Apollo 8 had its detractors, and this mission does, too.

But most of us “got it.” I pray that we “get it” again.

Democrats couldn’t care less.

Democrats to this day out-poll Republicans when voters are asked a question containing words to the effect of, “…cares about people like me.”

“People like me” is generally assumed to be, “ordinary people of moderate means.” To the extent that the Democratic Party could ever legitimately claim to care about “ordinary people,” it’s abundantly clear that they don’t care now. Nor do they have any particular concern for the poor, to whom they never stop pandering, beyond that cohort’s historic propensity for reliably voting Democratic.

Democrats haven’t cared about “ordinary Americans” or “hard working Americans” or “less fortunate Americans” in quite some time. At least not in any sense that benefits ordinary, hard working or less fortunate Americans in any tangible way. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

The hard, cold truth is that Democrats care about only one thing. Expanding their power via the expansion of government.

This singular fixation explains the impasse over the partial government shutdown that has cut the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. That impasse is what’s causing massively long lines at airports as airline passengers wait for hours to clear TSA screening checkpoints.

Democrats want to kneecap Immigration & Customs Enforcement. They want to make it close to impossible for ICE to deport illegal migrants. Never mind that when you have between 10 and 30 million people – most of them poor – living in the country illegally, it puts downward pressure on the wages of “hard working Americans” and “less fortunate Americans.” It fills up the ER waiting rooms at local hospitals upon which our own “less fortunate” citizens rely. The children of illegal migrants crowd the classrooms of the children of those “ordinary Americans” who can’t afford to send their kids to private schools.

None of these – and many other – negative impacts on “ordinary Americans” matter to Democrats. That’s because illegal migrants perform two increasingly essential functions for the Democratic Party. First, they expand the populations of blue states. Census numbers affect the allocation of the 435 seats in Congress. When a better off resident of a blue state like California who can’t take it anymore decamps for Texas, illegal migrants help to offset that loss and thus the apportionment of Congressional seats. This is becoming a survival level issue for Democrat office holders.

The second thing that illegal migrants do is expand the welfare rolls, through which Democrats distribute federal money. Beyond buying votes, much of that torrent of money helps fund the corrupt non-governmental organizations with noble sounding do-gooder names and mission statements. Most such NGOs accomplish essentially none of their mission statement goals. But they do lavishly compensate their top executives while donating generously to Democrats. Think ‘taxpayer-funded money laundering.’

So, “ordinary Americans” about whom Democrats constantly purport to care stuck languishing in airport security lines for hours is acceptable collateral damage.

Bottom line: Democrats don’t give a flying damn about “ordinary Americans.” They care about retaining their perks, power, prestige and money. It’s weapons-grade cynicism.

And you’re paying the bill.

Echoes of 2003.

 

Twenty-three years ago today, President George W. Bush believed two things. First, he believed that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was in possession of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ – a.k.a. WMDs. Such would include nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of war. Second, he believed that Iraq represented unfinished business from 1991 when his father was president and launched Operation Desert Storm to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

Thus believing, W launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. After an initial flush of success, Operation Iraqi Freedom turned into a mishandled occupation and failed attempt at nation building. And no WMDs were ever found. The Iraq War would go on to see George W. Bush leave office with truly dismal poll numbers.

Three weeks ago, Saturday, President Donald Trump believed two things. First, he believed that despite the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities last summer, the theocrats running Iran were nevertheless still close to having a deployable nuclear weapon and in any event would never give up their quest for nuclear weapons by which to threaten the Middle East and indeed the entire civilized world.

And second, he believed that with respect to Iran, there was no road left for further can-kicking.

So, he launched Operation Epic Fury.

Like Operation Iraqi Freedom, there has been a quick flush of success. Trump is promising that American air and naval superiority will make short work of the malfeasant Iranian regime. Certainly, it has made short work of the existing leadership. Iran is on its third ayatollah in as many weeks.

Iran is badly crippled. Much of its ballistic missile arsenal has been wiped out. So, too, its navy and many of its top military and government leaders.

But, degraded as the regime is, whoever is in charge is playing an ace in the Strait of Hormuz. Despite being crippled, Iran has brought traffic in that strategic waterway to an effective halt. Fully 20 percent of the world’s fossil-based energy transits the strait, and that energy is now missing from the world supply. The result is, among other things, higher gasoline prices for American consumers, very volatile equity and energy markets, and fears of reignited inflation.

I absolutely support the idea of once and for all ridding the world of the Iranian regime that has held the Middle East and the developed world hostage for nearly a half century. But, as much as I’d like to believe otherwise and for as much as some pundits for whom I have respect disagree with me, I am skeptical of the idea that doing so will be quick and easy. War never is.

Does that mean I believe Trump shouldn’t have done it. No. Or, at least, no, not necessarily.

But it does mean this. We can’t afford another half-assed, half measure stalemate.

I’m afraid of this war dragging on and, among other things, costing the GOP the midterms. But I’m even more afraid of having started it only to politically destroy the Trump presidency while leaving a still dangerous Iran to the next administration.

The SAVE Act is aptly named on several levels.

The SAVE Act – SAVE being an acronym for “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility” is about to be another dreary example of Republicans failing to do what they were hired to do. The SAVE Act is stuck in the Senate and Senate Majority Leader John Thune says that he’s powerless to get it unstuck. With a hang-dog expression he mumbles about the “math” and the fact that the “votes aren’t there” and about the need to be “clear-eyed” about it all.

OK, how’s this for clear? Most voters – Republicans and Democrats – support the provisions of the SAVE Act. So much so, that the bill could be aptly called the “Common Sense When It Comes to Our Sacred Right to Vote Act.”  That doesn’t lend itself to a handy acronym, but it would constitute truth in labeling.

What Thune apparently fails to understand is that the ‘SAVE’ label could also refer to, “SAVE the Republican majority in Congress,” and “SAVE the country from the ridiculous performance art of Democrats endlessly impeaching Donald Trump if they take over the House in November,” and “SAVE any hope for the GOP keeping the White House in 2028.”

The SAVE Act has five salient provisions. In a nutshell those provisions are a requirement for proof of citizenship to register to vote; standardization of voter registration procedures to help prevent fraudulent registration; a requirement for ID when you show up at the poll; a federal oversight mechanism for state voter registration procedures to ensure compliance; and the mandatory purging of voter rolls to get dead and ineligible voters off the rolls.

Here’s what’s infuriating about Thune’s flaccidity.

The SAVE Act isn’t controversial among the folks. This is one of those rare instances when all of us – Democrats and Republicans – pretty much agree on something. The SAVE Act enjoys upward of 85 percent approval in the polls. And it’s not partisan. Approximately three out of four Democrats support it.

Few of which Democrats are members of the U.S. Senate. Those Democrats are attempting to block it for one simple reason. They don’t like their party’s chances in free, fair, properly run elections. They need the option to cheat if they think an election might be close.

So, memo to John Thune. There’s a reason longtime Senator John Cornyn of Texas is hanging by a thread rather than enjoying safe, comfortable incumbency. There’s a reason that Democrats got more voters to the polls in Texas’s primary election last week than Republicans.

Republicans are fed up with the lack of results that establishment Republicans like you and Cornyn have delivered for too long. Republicans are becoming disheartened.

So, Mr. Thune, quit making excuses, start kicking some butts and get this bill passed. If you can’t pass a bill that is favored by nearly nine out of ten voters, you’re in the wrong line of work.

Pass this bill and you have a shot at prevailing in the midterms. Fumble, which you seem hellbent on doing, and the Democrats take over in November.

Mighty forces.

One of my favorite quotes comes from a 1921 book by Canadian author Basil King. It says:

Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid.”

That quote has informed most of my 35 years as an entrepreneur. I don’t hear those words as an excuse for ill-considered recklessness. I hear them as saying that bold action taken after thoughtful consideration of the risks has a way of unleashing positive reactions. Bold, decisive action can be infectious. Properly calibrated boldness can attract the favorable notice of people and organizations that can prove helpful in an effort or a cause.

So President Trump hopes.

Unleashing hell from above upon a sovereign nation run by sociopaths is about as bold as it gets. Having done exactly that, the president now very much needs mighty forces to come to his aid. (And to be clear, by saying his aid I mean our aid. Trump is acting on behalf of every American.)

The left is reflexively attributing Trump’s military action to every malign motivation they can think of. But I believe his motivation was entirely rational. I believe that he had information leading him to believe that despite last year’s Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran was closing in on a nuclear weapon. That, along with their well-documented possession of the ballistic missiles to deliver said weapons, and coupled with their murderous, apocalyptic rhetoric, meant in Trump’s mind that not acting would have been an impeachable offense.

Much good can come from this kinetic action in Iran. First and most obvious is the elimination of a homicidal regime that for nearly 50 years has been bent on the annihilation of Israel, the annihilation of the United States and indeed the immolation of the entirety of Western civilization.

But beyond that, putting the Iranian regime out of business – after having put the Maduro regime in Venezuela out of business – puts the squeeze on China, our number one strategic adversary. China is the largest oil importer in the world and Iran and Venezuela taken together account for about 25 percent of those imports. (For some perspective, the 1973 Arab oil embargo reduced total oil supply in the U.S. by only three to five percent, yet those of us who were alive remember the gas lines and the severe economic impact.)

If this operation succeeds, the U.S. gains de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz through which about 20 percent of the world’s daily oil supply transits.

Also, the defensive systems in both Iran and Venezuela that were provided by China have proved themselves essentially useless. Developing countries that might have been inclined to look to China for defense have certainly noticed.

But for all that, wars can destroy presidencies. Just ask Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush.

So, let’s pray for those mighty forces that Trump is going to need. Because success would reshape the world for the better. But the negative impact of failure upon the fortunes of the U.S. and the West is simply too awful to contemplate.

A single word to describe today’s Democrats.

 

churlish:’ch?r-lishadj 1 : marked by a lack of civility or graciousness : SURLY
2 : difficult to work with or deal with : INTRACTABLE

The word “churlish” – a word you might not use every day – came to my mind Tuesday night as I watched congressional Democrats make fools of themselves (again) at the president’s State of the Union address.

My goodness, what is it with these people? Why do they keep doing the same things again and again expecting different results?

The performance art that we have come to expect from the Dems got off to an early start with Texas Democratic Rep. Al Green’s requisite act of getting himself thrown out of the House chamber. (Al Green and Jasmine Crockett both come from my beloved State of Texas. Imagine my pride.)

You might recall that last year during President Trump’s address to a Joint Session of Congress Rep. Green got himself booted for shouting and shaking his cane at the president. Tuesday night, it was because he brought in a sign that was critical of Trump, signs being something expressly forbidden on the House floor under long-standing rules.

As the evening progressed, we were treated to an outburst from Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and an F-bomb lapel pin from fellow “squad” member Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.

Throughout it all, we got to watch as Democrats refused to stand and applaud as a current Coast Guardsman and a 100-year-old World War II veteran were each awarded the Medal of Honor. We got to watch Democrats sit on their self-righteous butts as President Trump rope-a-doped them into refusing to stand in agreement that the first duty of government is to protect its own citizens. What then, is government’s first duty by their estimation? (And they’re going to love the campaign ads that are already in production.)

Churlishness is a lot of things. It’s unpleasant. It’s childish. It’s almost always inappropriate.

One thing it certainly isn’t is policy.

But when is the last time the Democrats offered any policy? I’m happy to take any of my policy beliefs – from illegal immigration to welfare fraud to the need for voter ID to protect the integrity of elections – and debate them with any Democrat. I’m happy to say, “Tell me how I’m wrong. What is your better idea?”

But when the answer is, “You’re a white supremacist, a racist, a fascist and your mother is a ‘ho,”  there’s no hope for any substantive debate on policy aimed at improving the lives and fortunes of ordinary people.

It wasn’t always like this. I can remember when the Democratic Party was populated by thoughtful, principled men. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, Sam Rayburn of Texas and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut are among those that come to mind. All of them would have deplored the behavior of their colleagues on the House floor Tuesday night. Certainly none would have worn an F-bomb lapel pin.

One might have disagreed with them. One might have had principled differences with them. But one would never have called them churlish.

Principled debate between competing parties is the crucible from which good policy emerges. We don’t have that now and we need it.

We need for someone to come along and Make Democrats Great Again.

The further demise of journalism.

You might have missed the story last week in which we learned that The Washington Post laid off somewhere between a third and half of its employees. It’s perhaps the biggest one-day journalism bloodbath on record.

Gone is the sports section. Gone are features like book reviews. Gone is the local photography staff. Gone are bureaus in Europe and Asia. It’s the same old story. A newspaper’s readership declines. Business suffers. The newspaper lays off staff. The quality and quantity of content suffers. Readership further declines.

Such has been the story at iconic newspapers in big markets across the United States.

Jeff Bezos, you might recall, bought the Post in 2013. He has yet to make a dime on the purchase. According to reports, the paper lost $100 million in 2025. Even billionaires notice a financial leak of $100 million.

Media reporting places the blame on “the changing landscape in journalism” and the “secular challenges facing the newspaper industry.”

Certainly, those things are factors. Newspapers were particularly vulnerable to the disruption brought about by the advent of the internet. A news website can update itself on the fly in real time and push that update to your phone. A traditional newspaper must ink up a press and then load the printed product on trucks to be delivered to the four corners of the paper’s service area.

Websites like eBay and Indeed.com killed the once immensely profitable classified advertising section.

Those things are real, and they assuredly impacted The Post.

But what the media doesn’t report is that The Washington Post – like most of the “legacy” media industry – long ago devolved into a house organ for the Democratic Party. The paper – either intentionally or by accident – largely quit pretending to be balanced in its reporting.

When Bezos tried to move the paper back to the center, he faced a revolt in his newsroom while many of The Post’s leftist subscribers abandoned the paper in a huff. That’s a bad combination when potential subscribers on the right have long ago written you off.

But unlike most daily papers, The Post’s troubles weren’t inevitable. The Post has the distinction of being in the news junkie capital of the world. Two things are true about Washington, D.C. One, it’s a two-party town. And two, news is consumed there at a voracious rate.

Put out a product that both sides are willing to trust, and you have a business. Write off half of your potential universe, and you have a problem.

This is what happens to businesses that become so arrogant as to believe that they can safely ignore the sensibilities and sincerely held beliefs of half the people in the marketplace (see Gillette and Bud Light).

Even with acknowledged industry challenges, The Post is a unique institution that, by virtue of where it is located and the profile of those who consume it, had the potential to remain financially viable. Instead, it suffered for the fact that though leftists are almost always wrong, they’re never uncertain.

Trump’s HR performance review.

About a thousand years ago when I was getting started in the radio business, the station in Dallas at which I was a baby advertising salesman did something radical and abandoned music programming for a format no one knew about called “News & Talk.” We were the first station in the market to go all talk and among the first in the country.

There was no template. (At the time, Rush Limbaugh was a 25-year-old Top 40-disc jockey at KUDL Radio in Kansas City.)

We didn’t know what we were doing, and it showed.

But about three years in, the company – totally by accident – hired a program director named George who “got it.”

The company was then owned by proper, button down Dallas blue bloods. The execs were impeccably mannered and impeccably dressed.

George was none of that. He would come to work in an orange shirt, a green tie, and brown pants. He smoked these godawful little cigars. And he was amazingly profane.

But he got results. The station popped. Ratings jumped. Revenue, too. And the air staff started sounding like they knew they were on to something.

Who cared that George stunk, dressed terribly and swore a lot?

As it turned out the blue bloods running the company cared. And at the dawn of victory, they abruptly gave up on the station and ultimately sold it.

I offer this story for you folks who call yourselves conservatives and Republicans but who still haven’t fully bought in to Donald Trump.

If you were an HR manager sitting President Trump down for his annual performance review, here’s what you’d have to cover.

The border: Trump got hired based largely on this issue. Rather than the 10,000 encounters per day under Biden by which Customs & Border Patrol paroled migrants into the country in anticipation of judicial reviews to come years later (read: never), zero migrants per day are now being paroled into the country.

Gasoline prices: Average national gas prices are below $3.00 per gallon and falling, down from north of $4.00 when Trump took office.

The broader energy front: U.S. oil production now leads the world at 20 to 22 million barrels per day.

Inflation: Under Trump’s predecessor it peaked at nine percent. It stands now at 2.7 percent and is also falling.

The market: The Dow recently topped 50,000, up 15 percent since Trump took office.

Jobs: January jobs figures crushed expectations, coming in at 130,000 vs. the 55,000 that the “experts” predicted.

The recession: What recession? Precisely.

National security and the world stage: Iran has been neutralized as a nuclear threat and the regime is on the verge of collapse. So, too, the regime in Cuba.

Here’s where this all ties together. George did exactly what he was hired to do but the company didn’t stand behind him and his efforts came to naught.

Trump is doing what he was hired to do. But if voters don’t stand behind him in November’s midterm elections, that same fate will befall the country.

Go Back