Congress Should Keep California From Dictating Environmental Rules To The Whole Country
Illegal aliens aren’t just ‘guests’ — they’re future voters
After visiting a nearby resort filled with opulent wokesters, I couldn’t help but notice the signs proclaiming, “Love, not hate, makes America great.” I suspect the signs were meant to remind us of Donald Trump’s supposed nastiness for deporting as many as 50,000 illegal immigrants — most with criminal records. According to the left, such a policy makes Trump a fascist — maybe even the latest incarnation of Hitler.
A "nicer" leader, we’re told, would allow these illegal immigrants — including convicted rapists and other lowlifes — to remain in the country, at least until they exhausted multiple judicial appeals or committed a few more crimes. Why stop there? Let them vote in local elections, receive public assistance, education, and health care. After all, they supposedly enrich our society — or so Democrats insist, as they work tirelessly to provide all these forms of taxpayer-funded hospitality.
When virtue signalers clutch their pearls over Trump’s treatment of ‘nice illegal rapists,’ I have to wonder if they’re playing dumb.
But why did Democratic presidents we’re supposed to venerate — Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — get a free pass for far harsher deportation records? Clinton expelled close to a million illegal aliens with minimal judicial involvement, even boasting about his deportations during his re-election campaign. Obama, the left’s beloved heartthrob, threw out over four million illegal immigrants, aided by Trump’s current border czar Tom Homan, all without major interference from Democratic-appointed judges.
Compared to Clinton and Obama, Trump’s deportation numbers look paltry, especially given the legal and media warfare waged against him.
Even as recently as 2006, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — now screaming about Trump’s “cruelty” — eagerly pushed for building a border wall. Thirty years ago, few Democratic senators would have voted against it. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), back then, warned against flooding the country with unskilled foreign labor that would hurt America’s most vulnerable workers. Obama himself praised tougher immigration controls. In 2006, Democrats still held some loyalty to their working-class base. They understood that saturating American communities with third world lumpenproletariat — not to mention foreign gangs — would devastate the working class.
That was before Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Pete Buttigieg, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), and Rachel Levine became the faces of the rebranded Democratic Party.
Since then, both national parties have swapped electoral bases. Republicans moved away from country-club elites and realigned with the white — and increasingly Hispanic — working class. Democrats abandoned their traditional blue-collar support to embrace progressive white women, the LGBTQ lobby, government bureaucrats, black militants, and now, the cause of illegal immigrants.
For Democrats, the strategy is simple: expand the non-working-class base. Biden’s administration opened the border to as many as 10 million illegal aliens, and anyone with a functioning brain can see why.
Yet, when virtue signalers clutch their pearls over Trump’s treatment of “nice illegal rapists,” I have to wonder if they’re playing dumb. Do they really not know why their party flooded the country with illegal aliens? Do they honestly think slogans about "love" explain why Democrats fight tooth and nail to keep even convicted criminals from deportation?
Every illegal immigrant represents a potential future Democratic voter. If Trump’s administration was allowed to make moral distinctions among the "undocumented," Democrats might lose too many future loyalists. Better, from their view, to defend even a wife-beating, MS-13-affiliated “Maryland man” than risk losing tomorrow’s votes.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. Maybe the Democratic cheering squad doesn’t know — or care — how radically its party reversed itself on immigration. Maybe leftists assume their Democratic heroes always held the same radical social views as Tim Walz and Hakeem Jeffries.
Most live in the present, parroting whatever slogans the media and party elites hand them. If journalists and historians hide the truth, these activists show little curiosity to uncover it.
Meanwhile, the media and judicial attacks on Trump’s supposedly “Nazi-like” immigration policies continue to erode public support. Trump now polls negatively even on immigration, the very issue that propelled him into the White House.
If this delusion holds, Democrats may succeed in securing nearly all of their future voters.
Trump as ‘deporter in chief’? The real numbers might shock you
Former MSNBC host Chris Matthews, in an interview with CNN’s Jim Acosta, compared Trump’s immigration policies to Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust. He claimed that Hitler didn’t bother with German law — he just hauled people off to death camps in Poland and Hungary. Apparently, that’s what Trump is doing now by deporting MS-13 gang members to El Salvador.
Symone Sanders took it a step further. The MSNBC host suggested that deporting gang-affiliated noncitizens is simply the first step toward deporting black Americans. I’ll wait while you try to do that math.
The debate is about control — weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent.
Media mouthpieces like Sanders and Matthews are just the latest examples of the left’s Pavlovian tribalism when it comes to Trump and immigration. Just say the word “Trump,” and people froth at the mouth before they even hear the sentence. While the media cries “Hitler,” the numbers say otherwise. And numbers don’t lie — the narrative does.
Numbers don’t lie
The real “deporter in chief” isn’t Trump. It was President Bill Clinton, who sent back 12.3 million people during his presidency — 11.4 million returns and nearly 900,000 formal removals. President George W. Bush, likewise, presided over 10.3 million deportations — 8.3 million returns and two million removals. Even President Barack Obama, the progressive darling, oversaw 5.5 million deportations, including more than three million formal removals.
So how does Donald Trump stack up? Between 2017 and 2021, Trump deported somewhere between 1.5 million and two million people — dramatically fewer than Obama, Bush, or Clinton. In his current term so far, Trump has deported between 100,000 and 138,000 people. Yes, that’s assertive for a first term — but it's still fewer than Biden was deporting toward the end of his presidency.
The numbers simply don’t support the hysteria.
Who's the “dictator” here? Trump is deporting fewer people, with more legal oversight, and still being compared to history’s most reviled tyrant. Apparently, sending MS-13 gang members — violent criminals — back to their country of origin is now equivalent to genocide.
It’s not about immigration
This debate stopped being about immigration a long time ago. It’s now about control — about weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent. It’s about turning Donald Trump into the villain of every story, facts be damned.
If the numbers mattered, we’d be having a very different national conversation. We’d be asking why Bill Clinton deported six times as many people as Trump and never got labeled a fascist. We’d be questioning why Barack Obama’s record-setting removals didn’t spark cries of ethnic cleansing. And we’d be wondering why Trump, whose enforcement was relatively modest by comparison, triggered lawsuits, media hysteria, and endless Nazi analogies.
But facts don’t drive this narrative. The villain does. And in this script, Trump plays the villain — even when he does far less than the so-called heroes who came before him.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
Trump purges Clinton's $1B woke, audit-failing volunteer agency
The Trump administration on Wednesday placed most of AmeriCorps' full-time employees on administrative leave as it moves to reorganize the Bill Clinton-era volunteer agency.
The independent federal agency was established by Congress in 1993 to connect young Americans with community service opportunities, providing roughly a $4,000 stipend, housing accommodations, food, and a higher education grant, the New York Times reported.
'It is time to admit that this is a failed program that needs a complete overhaul or elimination.'
Despite receiving about $1 billion annually, AmeriCorps failed eight consecutive audits.
Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah) in December accused the agency of having "a long history of abusing taxpayer dollars."
"In 2023, the AmeriCorps inspector general issued a 'Management Challenges' report detailing significant challenges AmeriCorps faces. This includes being unable to detect fraud. We have no real idea when AmeriCorps will be able to have a clean audit again. In fact, this year's audit includes 78 recommendations still open, even after AmeriCorps said it addressed 20 last year," Owens said.
He called for AmeriCorps to be on the Department of Government Efficiency's "chopping block," arguing that it should not receive more taxpayer money while "it continuously fails to meet basic accountability standards."
"We can tell AmeriCorps to modernize and reform until we are blue in the face, but nothing will change unless we recognize the system is built on a flawed idea. It is time to admit that this is a failed program that needs a complete overhaul or elimination," Owens remarked.
Like many other federal agencies in recent years, AmeriCorps has become infiltrated with woke ideology, including climate change and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
Fox News Digital reported that the agency's 2024 annual management report listed "advancing racial and economic equity" as one of its key priorities.
"AmeriCorps has a decades-long commitment to advancing racial and economic equity through national service and volunteering," the report read. "These efforts are designed to expand pathways to opportunity for all Americans. Racial and economic equity will be central to AmeriCorps' planning and implementation of all priorities, ensuring AmeriCorps members and volunteers reflect the diversity of the American people and the communities in which they serve."
While Owens supports the elimination of AmeriCorps, a Trump administration official told the news outlet that the agency will receive an operational reset but will remain in existence.
On Wednesday, the White House placed 75% of the AmeriCorps full-time employees — 535 out of 700 staffers — on administrative leave while determining how it will reconfigure the agency. Additionally, agency contracts worth approximately $250 million have been terminated.
Anything else?
California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) stated on Thursday that the state would file a lawsuit against the Trump administration to stop its reorganization efforts.
He wrote in a post on X, "DOGE's actions to dismantle AmeriCorps threaten vulnerable Californians, disaster response and recovery, and economic opportunities."
"California will be suing to stop this," Newsom concluded.
In a separate statement, he called Trump's actions a "middle finger to volunteers serving their fellow Americans."
Earlier this week, Newsom filed a lawsuit against Trump to block the administration from imposing increased tariffs. The governor has set aside $50 million to challenge the current administration.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Fired Insubordinate Officers Reveal Massive U.S. Military Resentment Against Elected Civilian Command
Bill Maher Says His Dinner With Trump Showed ‘Why The Democrats Are So Unpopular’
'I'm just telling you what I saw'
Judges Ruling Against Trump Administration Have Numerous Conflicts Of Interest
'SUCH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST!'
Former Clinton strategist says Democrats are 'in ruins,' predicts major 'wipeout' in 2026 midterms
Mark Penn, a political pollster and former strategist for Hillary Clinton, predicted that Democrats will be facing another electoral "wipeout" during the 2026 congressional midterms.
In an op-ed, Penn argued that Democrats have deviated too far from their original party platform, costing them votes and popularity.
'The New Republican Party is positioned to deepen its support with these lapsed Democratic voters.'
"Democrats are facing the worst ratings in decades in my polls and others, dropping to as low as 29% favorability in the CNN poll, down from 62% in 2008," Penn said. "The reasons are pretty clear — after the 2024 election, voters re-evaluated the job that President Joe Biden did and began scratching their heads at the actions and positions of Democrats in Congress."
"Unless there is a major reset, I expect they will have an unexpected wipeout in next year's midterm elections."
Penn pointed to policies that Democrats previously held, like tough immigration policies and shrinking the government, which they have since abandoned. Since then, the Democratic Party has become the face of DEI, open borders, and hypersensitive social values that embrace unpopular issues like transgenderism and climate change.
"Step by step, Democrats drifted from these policies that produced near 75% approval ratings for Clinton," Penn said. "Tax and spend came back in the Obama years as tax rates went up and Obamacare kicked in, and he moved decisively to the left in the last two years of his presidency."
What used to be considered radical became commonplace in the Democratic Party. This ideological shift crescendoed with the election of former President Joe Biden, who Penn says "seemed to abandon virtually every position he ever took in his over 50 years as a moderate senator."
"By the time he departed the Oval Office, the left, and a set of extreme policies, had remade the Democratic Party from a working-class and middle-class party to a coalition of elites and Black voters," Penn said.
As a result of this tremendous shift, President Donald Trump swept all seven swing states and secured the popular vote. Penn predicted that his historic victory in November 2024 will have a trickle-down effect in the 2026 midterms.
"The result is a Democratic Party in ruins which will have to wait for the next Bill Clinton to come along and reset it again and return it to its common-sense, middle-class roots," Penn said. "Otherwise, the New Republican Party is positioned to deepen its support with these lapsed Democratic voters."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Democrats say they fight for you — while laughing all the way to the bank
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) the other day said what every Democrat truly believes: Your money isn’t yours. In a recent interview, the Texas Democrat dismissed the idea that Americans should keep $5,000 of their own earnings, scoffing, “Americans do not need $5,000.” She went even farther, saying, “We are not in the business of giving out money.”
That kind of detached arrogance could only come from a career politician — someone who has never had to budget, sacrifice, or work outside the D.C. bubble. But her words go beyond tone-deaf. They are a direct insult to millions of working-class families for whom $5,000 is not spare change. It can mean the difference between paying rent or facing eviction, keeping food on the table or going hungry, fixing a car or losing a job.
For years, Democrats have convinced voters that they are the party of the working class. But the mask is off. They serve elitist grifters, billionaire donors, and government insiders.
Meanwhile, taxpayers foot the bill for Crockett’s $999-a-month luxury car lease. While she enjoys that perk, she tells struggling families that $5,000 is meaningless. Maybe to her, it is. But for most Americans, it’s a lifeline.
At a time when inflation and economic uncertainty are squeezing households, she is chauffeured around on the taxpayer's dime, mocking the idea that people should have even a little more breathing room in their bank accounts.
And here’s the truth the media won’t say: The Democratic Party serves the wealthy. More than that, Democrats thrive on keeping Americans poor — because poverty means control.
Democrats claim to fight for the working class, but their bank accounts tell a different story. Bill and Hillary Clinton entered the White House broke and left worth hundreds of millions. Barack Obama was drowning in student debt before politics; now, he’s buying oceanfront mansions while warning about climate change. Kamala Harris, a career civil servant, is suddenly raking in millions. And then there’s Nancy Pelosi, whose stock trades have outperformed Wall Street’s top investors while she helps shape market-moving legislation.
These aren’t public servants. They are parasitic profiteers. The more Americans struggle, the more power — and wealth — they gain.
This is why they despise the Department of Government Efficiency. For the first time, someone is exposing how taxpayer money vanishes into slush funds and fraudulent programs, enriching the very politicians who claim to serve the people. Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s DOGE initiative isn’t just about efficiency — it’s about cutting off the endless cash flow that keeps these politicians wealthy. That’s why they are in full meltdown mode.
Democrats have no interest in fixing this. They rely on a bloated, corrupt, and inefficient system that lets them funnel taxpayer money wherever they want — activist groups, left-wing nonprofits, billionaire donors, and even their own pockets.
Meanwhile, Americans foot the bill for their lavish lifestyles.
We’re paying for Nancy Pelosi’s luxury travel while she profits from suspicious securities trading. We’re paying for Jasmine Crockett’s $999-a-month car lease. We’re paying for D.C. elites to party while they laugh at our struggles.
And they have the nerve to tell you $5,000 is meaningless.
Life has only gotten worse under their leadership. Gas prices have doubled since Trump left office in 2021. Food costs are at record highs. Home ownership is out of reach for most young Americans. Yet the same politicians keep voting to raise their own salaries, expand their travel budgets, and fund more luxury perks for themselves.
And then they have the audacity to claim that giving you a tax cut, letting you keep more of your money, or making the government less wasteful is somehow dangerous.
That’s why they are panicked over the DOGE. Once Americans see how much of their hard-earned money is wasted — once they understand exactly how the system is rigged — the backlash will be unstoppable.
Jasmine Crockett didn’t just misspeak. She revealed the Democratic Party’s entire strategy: Keep Americans struggling, keep them dependent, and keep them too poor to fight back. That’s how they stay in power.
For years, Democrats have convinced voters that they are the party of the working class. But the mask is off. They serve elitist grifters, billionaire donors, and government insiders who don’t care if you suffer — as long as they keep getting richer.
So the next time a Democrat claims he's fighting for “the people,” ask him how much his car lease costs. Ask him how his net worth tripled while in office. Ask him why he is so outraged that Elon Musk is exposing government fraud.
Because the answer is simple: Democrats are getting rich from your struggle. And they intend to keep it that way.
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories