As expected, President Trump’s White House UFC celebration sent liberals into meltdown mode, with the women of “The View” hysterically calling the event a “desecration” of the White House.
“We are talking terminal cases of Trump derangement syndrome all across the country with the libs,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says before playing a clip of the angry hosts.
“I don’t know how MMA or cage fighting is emblematic of our country,” Sunny Hostin said to the rest of the panel. “I just don’t understand how that sort of reflects American culture.”
“This doesn’t feel like a sport. This feels like you’re trying to show us who we’re supposed to be,” Whoopi Goldberg chimed in, before Ana Navarro added that it was evidence of the "continued desecration of the White House.”
“They’re concerned about the desecration of the White House because they believe that the White House should be respected, is what I’m hearing,” Gonzales says, pointing out that under the Biden administration, they had no issues with Biden essentially turning the White House into a Pride flag.
“You guys are prancing trannies around on the White House lawn. You want to talk about desecrating the White House? Give me a break,” she continues. “How about Joe Biden desecrating Easter Sunday, calling it Trans Visibility Day and hosting the event at the White House?”
Gonzales illustrates her point with a clip of a transgender woman on the White House lawn, pulling down his shirt to flash his fake breasts to the camera.
“That’s what happened on the White House lawn under Joe Biden’s tenure,” she says. “I’m not going to be lectured by these people. I’m not going to listen to these people claim that they care about desecration of the White House because it’s just such an esteemed place.”
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
It is a bad time to fly. Willie Walsh, head of the International Air Transport Association, drove home the point this week when he warned that “war-related disruptions in the Middle East and rising fuel costs have shifted the outlook for airlines to the worse.”
Walsh pointed to the recent closure of Spirit Airlines, America’s most iconic budget carrier, and warned that more airlines could suffer the same fate if current trends continue. That means fewer choices for fliers and higher prices at the airport.
Before Democrats demand that courts second-guess another antitrust settlement, they should reckon with the consequences of the last one they cheered.
But blaming the state of air travel solely on the Iran war is far too convenient. Airlines are also struggling because overzealous regulators and left-wing antitrust activists decided they knew better than the market.
Three years ago, Spirit had a plan to survive. It struck a merger agreement with JetBlue, another economy carrier, to create a new, globally scaled affordable airline. The Justice Department joined six states and the District of Columbia to file an antitrust lawsuit blocking the deal.
In early 2024, a federal judge sided with the Biden administration and blocked the merger. Biden officials and congressional Democrats cheered. Without JetBlue’s capital, Spirit’s struggles mounted. The airline filed for bankruptcy and earlier this year shut its doors.
Now many of the same officials who applauded the court order that killed Spirit are trying to shift blame to President Trump. The American people should not buy it, especially given what those same Biden officials said at the time.
Then-Attorney General Merrick Garland called the judge’s ruling “a victory for tens of millions of travelers who would have faced higher fares and fewer choices had the proposed merger between JetBlue and Spirit been allowed to move forward.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) took to X to declare, “I’ve warned for months that a @JetBlue-@SpiritAirlines merger would have led to fewer flights and higher fares. @JusticeATR and @USDOT were right to stand up for consumers and fight against runaway airline consolidation. This is a Biden win for flyers!”
Pete Buttigieg, Biden’s transportation secretary, openly bragged about siding with the Justice Department and helping prevent the merger in the name of protecting “low fares” and “competition.”
The reality looks very different now.
Spirit’s shutdown was the first complete closure of a major U.S. carrier in 25 years. It was caused directly by the same actions the Biden administration once boasted about.
Travelers lost a low-cost option. Spirit’s more than 11,000 employees saw their lives upended. And Spirit’s disappearance will deepen the coming travel recession. The airline placed downward pressure on fares for years. Without it, prices are rising.
RELATED: Dear airlines, please stop pitching your credit cards at 33,000 feet
Travelers now face fewer choices at the airport. The remaining choices tend to be pricier, more consolidated carriers that no doubt welcomed Spirit’s demise.
One might hope antitrust enforcers would learn the obvious lesson: Bigger does not always mean worse. Sometimes mergers preserve competition. Sometimes they lower out-of-pocket costs for consumers. Sometimes blocking a merger kills the very competitor regulators claim to protect.
Unfortunately, many Democrats refuse to accept that reality.
Some of the same members of Congress and state attorneys general who supported blocking the Spirit-JetBlue merger now want courts to use the Tunney Act to second-guess other Trump administration antitrust decisions. The Tunney Act gives courts a limited role in reviewing antitrust settlements negotiated by the Justice Department. Democrats now want judges to stretch that role and challenge straightforward Trump settlements, including one merger backed by the intelligence community on national security grounds.
Historically, courts have deferred to the executive branch’s enforcement decisions. Democrats now want judges to intervene because they do not like the Trump administration’s policy choices.
Perhaps they should look in the mirror first.
Competition policy should protect consumers. It should not exist to punish private commerce, indulge ideological hostility to business, or let socialist antitrust activists pretend they can manage markets better than the people actually operating in them.
Spirit Airlines offers a painful lesson. The Biden administration, Elizabeth Warren, and other antitrust crusaders celebrated the decision that prevented Spirit from joining forces with JetBlue. Today, Spirit is gone, more than 11,000 workers have paid the price, and travelers have fewer choices at the airport.
Before Democrats demand that courts second-guess another antitrust settlement, they should reckon with the consequences of the last one they cheered.
Why are Washington and Detroit so worried about Chinese automakers?
Most Americans assume the answer is cheap cars. But lower-priced imports are only the visible part of China's advantage.
Companies like BYD aren't simply building vehicles. They're building integrated ecosystems that include batteries, software, and charging infrastructure.
The bigger story is who controls the batteries, software, supply chains, and technology that increasingly determine who wins — and loses — the future of the auto business.
To control a nation's car industry is to control an industry that sits at the center of manufacturing, technology, and national security.
That's the assumption behind Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno's proposal to block Chinese vehicles and components entirely — and it signals a turning point. His message is blunt: Chinese automakers should not gain a foothold in the United States. This isn't an incremental policy adjustment. It's a hard line.
The automotive industry isn't some niche corner of the economy. It accounts for roughly 22% of trade between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, making it one of the most important industries on the continent. And now it's being challenged by a global competitor that plays by very different rules.
While the United States tightens restrictions, the international response remains divided. Europe has imposed steep tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, arguing they are being dumped below cost. Canada has taken a different approach, agreeing to allow 49,000 Chinese EVs into its market.
That divergence matters because supply chains don't stop at national borders.
Washington is already signaling that any attempt to route Chinese vehicles through Canada or other backdoor channels will face scrutiny. The message is clear: If Chinese vehicles can't enter directly, they won't be allowed to enter indirectly.
Nor is this happening in isolation. The Biden administration already laid much of the groundwork through executive actions targeting Chinese vehicle imports over concerns about software, hardware, and data security.
Those concerns aren't hypothetical. U.S. officials have confirmed that Chinese state-sponsored hackers have infiltrated critical infrastructure systems.
Now apply that reality to modern vehicles, which increasingly function as rolling computers. The issue isn't simply where a vehicle is assembled. It's who controls the software, connectivity, and data flowing through it.
That's why Moreno's proposal focuses not only on vehicles themselves, but also on software integration, component sourcing, and corporate partnerships.
That may be a step in the right direction, but the auto industry itself is now pushing for even tougher restrictions.
Major industry groups representing automakers, suppliers, and dealers argue that simply moving Chinese production onto U.S. soil doesn't solve the underlying problem if the technology, software, and supply chains remain controlled elsewhere. That leaves policymakers weighing the benefits of investment and jobs against concerns over long-term dependence on foreign-controlled technology.
At the same time, the global auto industry is changing faster than many manufacturers anticipated.
Toyota executives have warned that the industry's traditional cost structures and manufacturing assumptions may no longer be sufficient in a rapidly changing market. This isn't about minor adjustments. It's about adapting to a fundamentally different competitive landscape.
Chinese companies dominate battery production, accounting for roughly 80% of global output. Batteries are the most expensive component in most electric vehicles and increasingly important in hybrids as well. Control over battery production translates directly into pricing power and manufacturing flexibility.
Companies like BYD aren't simply building vehicles. They're building integrated ecosystems that include batteries, software, and charging infrastructure. That level of vertical integration allows them to move faster and often at lower cost than competitors relying on fragmented global supply chains.
Technology companies are also entering the automotive space with a different mindset. They're not burdened by decades of manufacturing habits or legacy systems. They're focused on software, speed, and scale. Watch companies like NVIDIA and Qualcomm, which are becoming increasingly important players in automotive technology.
For traditional automakers, the challenge is no longer just building a better vehicle. It's building vehicles faster, cheaper, and smarter while navigating regulations that seem to change with every election cycle.
That uncertainty has become a growing frustration across the industry. Executives increasingly complain about regulatory whiplash that makes long-term planning difficult.
Two years ago, the industry was being pushed toward full electrification. Today, many automakers are shifting resources toward hybrids as consumer demand evolves. Those strategic pivots are expensive.
Hyundai executives have acknowledged that competing directly with Chinese manufacturers on price is likely a losing proposition. Their strategy is to compete on quality, brand reputation, and dealer networks.
Consumers, however, ultimately care about affordability.
If Chinese manufacturers can consistently deliver competitive vehicles at significantly lower prices, pressure on Western automakers will continue to grow.
That's why this debate isn't going away.
The push to block Chinese vehicles and components is as much about buying time as it is about setting policy. It gives American and allied manufacturers time to strengthen battery production, secure supply chains, and improve their competitive position.
But time alone won't solve the problem.
The United States still possesses enormous advantages in engineering talent, established brands, and one of the strongest dealer networks in the world. Those advantages remain meaningful, but they aren't permanent. They have to be reinforced with competitive products, realistic pricing, and a clear, long-term strategy.
Cars are no longer just transportation. They are increasingly software platforms, data hubs, and strategic industrial assets.
That is why the debate over Chinese vehicles has become far bigger than tariffs or trade policy. The question is whether the United States can remain competitive in an industry being reshaped by technology, batteries, and global supply chains.
Once control of those systems is lost, getting it back becomes far more difficult than anyone expects.
Imagine sacrificing the comforts of a normal life to serve an institution you believed was worth joining. And then imagine that very same institution — the one you’ve poured your blood, sweat, and tears into for years — turns on you and brands you the enemy. For the more than 8,000 U.S. service members booted […]
Presidents have shown that they cannot be trusted to be responsible in using the discretion Congress has given them in immigration policy.
The SPLC was able to 'de-platform, de-bank, and deny services to every single organization on that hate map.'
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com