No Kings, no boundaries, no America



Fourteen years after Occupy Wall Street and five years after the George Floyd riots, the Democratic Party has embraced the tactics of the mob. Anyone who hoped the party would retreat from extremism was wrong.

The movement calling itself No Kings has returned, proving the point. What began as a slogan of defiance now serves as the organizing banner for a political faction that thrives on confrontation, violence, and plausible deniability.

The republic cannot survive a ruling class that excuses its own mobs.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk could have been a moment of national reflection — a chance for Democrats to reconsider their indulgence in rhetoric that blurs the line between protest and terrorism. Instead, the party apparatus has chosen escalation.

When you tell unstable people that Trump is a “fascist,” that dissent is violence, and that opposition equals Nazism, don’t be shocked when someone acts on it.

The logic of the left

To understand how this happened, you must understand how the modern left thinks. Progressives treat speech as violence and dissent as an existential threat. Anyone who refuses to affirm their ideology becomes, by definition, an oppressor.

From that premise, violence becomes “self-defense.” If Trump is Hitler, then violence against him — or anyone aligned with his cause — is not just justified but virtuous.

The left’s revolutionaries no longer storm palaces. They dominate the streets. On October 18, No Kings protests will erupt again across the country. What was once the fringe tactic of radicals has become the preferred strategy of the Democratic Party: organized street action modeled on unstable regimes abroad.

This backslide into mob politics raises tensions at a time when the nation needs prudence. Instead, Democrats seem eager to test how far their own movement will go.

What lies beneath the No Kings network

After the June 14 protests, our team at the Oversight Project traced the movement’s primary organizing partner, 50501. What we found confirmed the worst suspicions: demonstrable ties to the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Democratic Socialists of America, Antifa, and Students for Justice in Palestine.

These groups have openly supported violent action or defended authoritarian regimes, including China’s Communist Party. Mapping their social media connections revealed links to foreign influence networks tied to Chinese propaganda operations.

Antifa affiliates have also joined the effort, circulating merchandise celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death — shirts reading “Nazi Lives Don’t Matter” and “Normalize Political Violence” printed with a guillotine.

This is the energy behind No Kings. Its rhetoric echoes the Chinese Communist Party’s talking points on Tiananmen Square and defends regimes that crush dissent. Some of its alumni have even celebrated the murder of Israeli diplomats. Others maintain direct connections to Neville Singham and Chinese consulate officials.

For years, Democrats obsessed over alleged Russian meddling in U.S. politics. Yet now they embrace networks steeped in foreign influence to advance their own protest movements. As the Trump administration maps these organizations, many roads will lead overseas. Beijing has long used this method — stoking domestic unrest to weaken rivals from within.

The question isn’t whether the Democrats know this. It’s whether they care.

How the extremists captured the party

So how did a movement this toxic gain institutional cover from the Democratic establishment? Why do party leaders like Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) offer it full-throated support? And why do former Republicans like George Conway, Bill Kristol, and Joe Walsh lend their credibility to the cause?

Because the Democrats have surrendered to their radical base. They’ve stopped trying to lead it and started following it. Rather than condemn political extremism, they seek to normalize and rebrand it.

When Antifa militants show up at Democrat-aligned protests, party leaders feign surprise. When violence erupts, they retreat to the safety of “plausible deniability.” It’s a tired act — and the public no longer buys it.

RELATED: Trump names Antifa. The establishment still pretends it doesn’t exist.

hoto by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

Why the crackdown terrifies them

This explains why Democrats fight so ferociously against classifying Antifa as a domestic or foreign terrorist organization. Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 directs a whole-of-government response to domestic extremism. Through the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces, federal agencies already possess the tools to investigate, expose, and dismantle these networks.

The real question is whether they will use them.

A serious enforcement effort would strip away the Democrats’ mask of deniability and expose the institutional support behind the violence. It would show that what poses as activism is, in fact, the operational arm of a radicalized political movement.

The choice ahead

Across the world, major parties have flirted with revolutionary tactics when democracy failed to deliver their goals. It’s the oldest temptation in politics. But America is now watching a mainstream party openly indulge in it.

Street action, foreign influence, and mob intimidation are not signs of progress — they are symptoms of decay. If Democrats continue down this path, they will drag the country with them.

The republic cannot survive a ruling class that excuses its own mobs.

Antifa isn’t ‘anti-fascist’ — it’s anti-freedom and anti-God



Last week, a Turning Point USA student at Arizona State University found an Antifa recruitment brochure on campus. It looked like a fourth-grader’s art project, leading some to suspect it might have been a class assignment — perhaps an attempt by a sympathetic professor to portray Antifa as “not all that bad.” But the flyer included a real Instagram handle, suggesting a more deliberate effort than a student prank.

So what exactly is Antifa, and why does it still find support among radical professors?

The name sounds noble — until you define it

At first glance, “Antifa,” short for “anti-fascism,” seems harmless or even virtuous. After all, who would oppose being against fascism? But the real question is: What does Antifa mean by “fascism”?

Fascism and communism are rival branches of the same ideological tree — the radical left.

Historically, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini coined the term “fascism,” defining it as the belief that “everything is in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” Fascism was a form of totalitarian national socialism that made the state the highest authority in human life. Every other institution — church, family, business, education — was expected to exist only under state control. Far from being a right-wing ideology, as popular myth holds, fascism emerged from the revolutionary left.

Rival totalitarians

Fascists and communists share more than they admit. Both demand total control of society under the pretense of “fixing” human problems. The difference lies in scale. Fascists exalt the nation; communists exalt the world.

The easiest way to spot a communist is to find the professor shouting loudest about “fascism.” The two are rival branches of the same ideological tree — the radical left. Both trace their roots to the French Revolution and Marxism, in sharp contrast to the liberty-born ideals of the American Revolution.

The intellectual roots

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the philosophical father of modern revolution, claimed humans are born good but “everywhere in chains.” Evil, he said, began with private property. Those who own property define crime, allowing them to oppress everyone else. His cure was the “general will” — the supposed collective will of the people expressed through the state. Every new tyrant since has claimed to know exactly what that will demands.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel built on Rousseau with his idea that history advances through conflict, a process he called the “dialectic.” Karl Marx stripped Hegel’s theory of its spiritual elements and turned it into the “materialist dialectic.” To Marx, all history is a struggle over material resources and capital. Religion, morality, and family were mere disguises for economic power.

This logic birthed the Marxist slogan “Workers of the world, unite!” and set the stage for revolutions in Russia and Germany. When fascists in Germany blocked the communist uprising, Antifaschistische Aktion — Antifa — was born.

A revolution against the West

Modern Antifa isn’t formally descended from the 1930s German movement, but its ideology hasn’t changed. The group still defines itself by opposition, not by principle.

Antifa claims to fight “oppression,” yet it chooses its targets selectively. Members denounce slavery from centuries past but ignore the slave markets that still operate in parts of Africa and the Middle East. Their real enemy isn’t tyranny — it’s the West, capitalism, and Christianity.

That’s why Antifa allies with any movement hostile to Western civilization, even those far more oppressive than what Antifa claims to resist. Members excuse such alliances by insisting those groups were “forced” into brutality by Western influence. In Antifa’s worldview, “oppression” means “whiteness,” “heteronormativity,” and Christianity. Belief in personal responsibility, hard work, or the rule of law — the very foundations of ordered liberty — become systems of oppression.

How Antifa operates

Antifa rejects reform in favor of perpetual revolution — viva la revolución! Its adherents champion “direct action,” not dialogue. Their tactics include doxxing, counter-rallies, vandalism, and physical intimidation — all designed to silence opponents by fear, not reason. Logic itself, they argue, is a “tool of oppression.” The result is an ideology that devours itself: incoherent, emotional, and rooted in will, not intellect.

Fascists and communists may fight each other, but they share one deeper hatred — the hatred of God.

A Hispanic Christian friend of mine pursuing a degree in Latin American studies once told me his professor said, “Ché su Cristo” — Ché as Christ. To this professor, revolutionary violence was redemptive. For many radicals, Ché Guevara is the true messiah; salvation comes not through grace but through destruction.

They don’t debate ideas — they annihilate opponents. That’s why they despise people like Charlie Kirk. He represented everything they can’t: clear reasoning, coherent argument, and defense of the American Revolution’s principles — limited government, ordered liberty, and faith in God.

RELATED: Trump praises Blaze News reporting during Antifa roundtable at White House — and slaps down MSNBC, CNN

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Antifa’s real enemy

The American Revolution recognized that the state is not supreme. It is one institution among others — family, church, and business, each with its own God-given role. The state’s proper duty is limited: to punish wrongdoing and protect the innocent. That vision of ordered liberty is written plainly into the Constitution’s preamble.

America’s founders built a republic — a government under law, lex rex — “the law is king.” They believed that God’s law, revealed in both nature and Scripture, provides the moral order that makes true freedom possible.

At its core, Antifa’s ultimate enemy isn’t any human institution — it is God Himself. Whether its adherents are atheists or occultists, they view God as the oppressor because He gives law. Their rebellion echoes Lucifer’s ancient creed: “Do what thou wilt.” Saul Alinsky, in “Rules for Radicals,” openly admired Lucifer as the arch-rebel. Antifa’s devotion to the sexual revolution and the LGBTQ+ movement flows from the same impulse: the rejection of divine order in favor of self-will.

Fascists and communists may fight each other, but they share one deeper hatred — the hatred of God. Both reject the idea that rights come from a Creator and that moral law defines justice.

America stands in opposition to both. Our republic rests on the conviction that God endows every person with rights and that government exists to protect — not replace — the moral order rooted in divine law. No state can perfect humanity. Salvation from sin and death comes only through Christ.

That makes Christianity, not Marxism or fascism, the true enemy of tyranny.

As we defend Christian truth in public life, we must do so with discernment, knowing that our opponents’ hatred runs deeper than politics. It is spiritual. And when they finally drop the mask of “tolerance” and “niceness,” they reveal exactly what they’ve always been.

When they tell you who they are and what they hate — believe them.

Liberty cannot survive a culture that cheers assassins



When 20-year-old loner Thomas Matthew Crooks ascended a sloped roof in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and opened fire, he unleashed a torrent of clichés. Commentators and public figures avoided the term “assassination attempt,” even if the AR-15 was trained on the head of the Republican Party’s nominee for president. Instead, they condemned “political violence.”

“There is absolutely no place for political violence in our democracy,” former President Barack Obama said. One year later, he added the word “despicable” to his condemnation of the assassin who killed Charlie Kirk. That was an upgrade from two weeks prior, when he described the shooting at Annunciation Catholic School by a transgender person as merely “unnecessary.”

Those in power are not only failing to enforce order, but also excusing and even actively promoting the conditions that undermine a peaceful, stable, and orderly regime.

Anyone fluent in post-9/11 rhetoric knows that political violence is the domain of terrorists and lone wolf ideologues, whose manifestos will soon be unearthed by federal investigators, deciphered by the high priests of our therapeutic age, and debated by partisans on cable TV.

The attempt to reduce it to the mere atomized individual, however, is a modern novelty. From the American Revolution to the Civil War, from the 1863 draft riots to the 1968 MLK riots, from the spring of Rodney King to the summer of George Floyd, the United States has a long history of people resorting to violence to achieve political ends by way of the mob.

Since the January 6 riot that followed the 2020 election, the left has persistently attempted to paint the right as particularly prone to mob action. But as the online response to the murder of Charlie Kirk demonstrates — with thousands of leftists openly celebrating the gory, public assassination of a young father — the vitriol that drives mob violence is endemic to American political discourse and a perpetual threat to order.

America’s founders understood this all too well.

In August 1786, a violent insurrection ripped through the peaceful Massachusetts countryside. After the end of the Revolutionary War, many American soldiers found themselves caught in a vise, with debt collectors on one side and a government unable to make good on back pay on the other. A disgruntled former officer in the Continental Army named Daniel Shays led a violent rebellion aimed at breaking the vise at gunpoint.

“Commotions of this sort, like snow-balls, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them,” George Washington wrote in a letter, striking a serene tone in the face of an insurrection. James Madison was less forgiving: “In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob,” he wrote inFederalist 55. Inspired by Shays’ Rebellion and seeking to rein in the excesses of democracy, lawmakers called for the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787.

Our current moment of chaos

If the United States Constitution was borne out of political chaos, why does the current moment strike so many as distinctly perilous? Classical political philosophy offers us a clearer answer to this question than modern psychoanalysis. The most pointed debate among philosophers throughout the centuries has centered on how to prevent mob violence and ensure that most unnatural of things: political order.

In Plato’s “Republic," the work that stands at the headwaters of the Western tradition of political philosophy, Socrates argues that the only truly just society is one in which philosophers are kings and kings are philosophers. As a rule, democracy devolves into tyranny, for mob rule inevitably breeds impulsive citizens who become focused on petty pleasures. The resulting disorder eventually becomes so unbearable that a demagogue arises, promising to restore order and peace.

The classically educated founders picked up on these ideas — mediated through Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, and Montesquieu, among others — as they developed the structure of the new American government. The Constitution’s mixed government was explicitly designed to establish a political order that would take into consideration the sentiments and interests of the people without yielding to mob rule at the expense of order. The founders took for granted that powerful elites would necessarily be interested in upholding the regime from which they derived their authority.

Terror from the top

History has often seen disaffected elites stoke insurrections to defenestrate a ruling class that shut them out of public life. The famous case of the Catilinarian Conspiracy in late republican Rome, in which a disgruntled aristocrat named Catiline attempted to overthrow the republic during the consulship of Cicero, serves as a striking example.

In the 21st century, we face a different phenomenon: Those in power are not only failing to enforce order, but also excusing and even actively promoting the conditions that undermine a peaceful, stable, and orderly regime.

The points of erosion are numerous. The public cheerleading of assassinations can be dismissed as noise from the rabble, but it is more difficult to ignore the numerous calls from elites for civic conflagration. Newspapers are promoting historically dubious revisionism that undermines the moral legitimacy of the Constitution. Billionaire-backed prosecutors decline to prosecute violent crime.

For years, those in power at best ignored — and at worst encouraged — mob-driven chaos in American social life, resulting in declining trust in institutions, lowered expectations for basic public order, coarsened or altogether discarded social mores, and a general sense on all sides that Western civilization is breaking down.

Without a populace capable of self-control, liberty becomes impossible.

The United States has, of course, faced more robust political violence than what we are witnessing today. But even during the Civil War — brutal by any standard — a certain civility tended to obtain between the combatants. As Abraham Lincoln noted in his second inaugural address, “Both [sides] read the same Bible and pray to the same God.” Even in the midst of a horrific war, a shared sense of ultimate things somewhat tempered the disorder and destruction — and crucially promoted a semblance of reconciliation once the war ended.

Our modern disorder runs deeper. The shattering of fundamental shared assumptions about virtually anything leaves political opponents looking less like fellow citizens to be persuaded and more like enemies to be subdued.

Charlie Kirk, despite his relative political moderation and his persistent willingness to engage in attempts at persuasion, continues to be smeared by many as a “Nazi propagandist.” The willful refusal to distinguish between mostly run-of-the-mill American conservatism and the murderous foreign ideology known as National Socialism is telling. The implication is not subtle: If you disagree with me, you are my enemy — and I am justified in cheering your murder.

Fellow citizens who persistently view their political opponents as enemies and existential threats cannot long exist in a shared political community.

“Democracy is on the ballot,” the popular refrain goes, but rarely is democracy undermined by a single election. It is instead undermined by a gradual decline in public spiritedness and private virtue, as well as the loss of social trust and good faith necessary to avoid violence.

The chief prosecutors against institutional authority are not disaffected Catalines but the ruling class itself. This arrangement may work for a while, but both political theory and common sense suggest that it is volatile and unlikely to last for long.

The conditions of liberty

Political order, in general, requires a degree of virtue, public-spiritedness, and good will among the citizenry. James Madison in Federalist 55 remarks that, of all the possible permutations of government that have yet been conceived, republican government is uniquely dependent upon order and institutional legitimacy:

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.

In short, republican government requires citizens who can govern themselves, an antidote to the passions that precede mayhem and assassination. Without a populace capable of self-control, liberty becomes impossible. Under such conditions, the releasing of restraints never liberates — it only promotes mob-like behavior.

RELATED: Radical killers turned campus heroes: How colleges idolize political violence

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

The disorder of Shays’ Rebellion prompted the drafting of the Constitution, initiating what has sometimes been called an “experiment in ordered liberty.” That experiment was put to the test beginning in 1791 in Western Pennsylvania. The Whiskey Rebellion reached a crisis in Bower Hill, Pennsylvania, about 50 miles south of modern-day Butler, when a mob of 600 disgruntled residents laid siege to a federal tax collector. With the blessing of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and Federalistco-author John Jay, President George Washington assembled troops to put down the rebellion.

Washington wrote in a proclamation:

I have accordingly determined [to call the militia], feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit.

Washington left Philadelphia to march thousands of state militiamen into the rebel haven of Western Pennsylvania. The insurrectionists surrendered without firing a shot.

Our new era of political violence rolls on, with Charlie Kirk’s murder being only the latest and most prominent example. Our leaders assure us they will ride out into the field just as Washington once did. Whether they will use their presence and influence to suppress or encourage “so fatal a spirit” remains an open question.

Editor’s note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind.

Street riots can’t set US immigration policy



The New York Post last week chided President Trump for not “getting it right” on deportations. But its real target wasn’t Trump. It was Stephen Miller, the president’s longtime immigration adviser and current White House deputy chief of staff. The Post’s editorial board warned that Miller’s plan to apprehend 3,000 illegal aliens per day is “asking for trouble.”

The Post argued the number is unrealistic. Even if Immigration and Customs Enforcement focuses on “the worst of the worst,” the roundup will still trigger media-fueled hysteria and nationwide riots. Mass arrests, it claimed, carry the “highest risk public-opinion-wise.”

If we concede to street violence, we let the enemy set the terms. That’s not leadership. That’s surrender.

The Post envisioned a wave of anti-ICE demonstrations, media pearl-clutching, and chaos. It feared ICE would be stretched too thin trying to hit its daily targets. Worse still, agents might apprehend illegal immigrants who entered before Biden — or even before Obama — and have “put down some roots.” That, we’re told, would create “economic problems,” particularly for agriculture.

The solution? The Post recommended a “scalpel, not a hammer.” Encourage illegal immigrants to self-deport. Offer incentives. Go soft. Supposedly, a million have already left on their own. And if Trump continues gently urging them out, the paper claims, many more will go peacefully.

The problem? We don’t even know if that number is real. The Department of Homeland Security doesn’t systematically track self-deportations. It’s possible some of the exits happened during the Trump years or even before. Regardless, they’ve hardly made a dent in the 11 million people Homeland Security says are here illegally.

But more troubling than the questionable data is the message Trump would send if he adopted the Post’s approach: that he’s willing to pull back on deportations — not because it’s the right policy, but because it might provoke the left. It would mean ICE can’t arrest even violent felons if it risks upsetting the street mobs funded by Democrats. And because the left treats all illegal immigrants as future voters, that would effectively shut down enforcement altogether.

As a historian, I’ll offer a provocative but fitting comparison: Today’s leftist thugs resemble the Nazi brownshirts of the Weimar era. Back then, many thought the nationalists could harness the street violence for political gain. They were wrong. The brownshirts brought chaos, not order. I see nothing morally or politically superior about the rioters in Los Angeles. They may call themselves anti-fascists. But their behavior — and their impact — is the same.

RELATED: Police union calls on Cudahy vice mayor to resign over video taunting violent street gangs to defend LA from ICE agents

Photo by MARVIN RECINOS/AFP via Getty Images

Those who excuse or encourage this violence, or who blame the government for trying to remove violent criminals, don’t care about law and order. They don’t care about stopping murderers, rapists, or cartel operatives. They care about power.

If some illegal immigrants have lived here for years and become productive members of society, the government can evaluate those cases once the criminals are gone. Prioritizing felons doesn’t mean abandoning discretion. But it does mean enforcing the law — despite the noise.

Trump’s crackdown will also encourage more self-deportation. If illegal immigrants know there’s a new sheriff in town, they’ll think twice about staying. As for the rioters and their wealthy enablers? Perhaps, we could find a way to help them self-deport to Antarctica. At a minimum, they deserve the same accommodations the left gave to January 6 protesters.

Even if Miller’s 3,000-a-day goal can’t be fully met, the effort matters. Laura Ingraham is right: We won’t deport all of the Democrats’ future voters. But that’s no reason not to try. The street violence and intimidation are designed to cow Republicans into submission. They’re a threat — not just to policy but to republican government itself.

If we concede to street violence, we let the enemy set the terms. That’s not leadership. That’s surrender.

No more accommodation. Crush the coup.

Trump fulfills his oath while Newsom and Bass shield foreign felons



Los Angeles looked like a war zone this week. Rioters — roughly 1,000 strong — torched vehicles and hurled rocks, concrete, and fireworks at law enforcement officers. They slashed tires and set fires in the streets. In the middle of it all, an American flag burned on the pavement as a mob urinated on it and screamed, “F**k Trump!”

This wasn’t spontaneous outrage. It was an organized assault on law, order, and national sovereignty — an eruption years in the making. And it happened in a city governed by officials who have spent decades dismantling the very structures meant to defend their constituents.

The United States owes rights and protections to its citizens — not to those who break its laws and exploit its generosity.

This riot didn’t begin last week. It began when Joe Biden threw open the nation’s borders and undermined the rule of law.

As rioters burn the American flag in downtown Los Angeles, state and local officials burn the constitutions that once protected their citizens.

The Constitution’s preamble lays out the government’s core mission: to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Article II, Section 3 provides that the president will ensure the laws “be faithfully executed.”

Contrary to what we’ve seen in Los Angeles, the duty of our elected officials is to defend the rule of law — not to support those who challenge it. That responsibility ultimately rests with the president: to protect the safety and security of the United States and its citizens.

Biden lit the fuse

Biden abandoned that responsibility. During his four years in office, he permitted more than 12 million illegal crossings, including at least 500,000 individuals with criminal records in their home countries.

He didn’t just neglect the law — he defied it. And the consequences have been deadly. More than 300,000 Americans died from fentanyl poisoning during the Biden years. Illegal alien gangs now operate trafficking networks in every major U.S. city. Innocent Americans have been raped, murdered, and assaulted because the federal government refused to act.

That’s not failed policy — it’s failed leadership. And the Constitution offers no cover for it.

Trump restores constitutional order

The voters responded in November. Donald J. Trump returned to the White House in January with a clear mandate: re-establish sovereignty, restore order, and protect the American people. That mandate extends to the men and women he’s appointed to carry it out — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and ICE Director Todd Lyons.

Their job is not theoretical. It’s real, it’s active, and it’s happening now. While California officials obstruct federal agents and give shelter to violent mobs, Trump’s team is working to reassert lawful authority — starting with immigration enforcement.

RELATED: Why is Gavin Newsom going full Jefferson Davis?

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

You might think California’s leaders would welcome help as their cities descend into chaos. Instead, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) demand that ICE back off and the National Guard go home. Rather than cooperate with federal law enforcement, they’ve chosen to protect the very forces tearing their communities apart.

They might want to reread their founding documents.

Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution states:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Moreover, the Los Angeles City Charter grants broad authority to protect life, liberty, and property. Yet, Bass and Newsom are using that power to shield foreign criminals from lawful arrest.

Sanctuary for criminals

Among those ICE sought to detain last week:

  • Armando Ordaz, convicted of sexual battery and affiliated with a known gang.
  • Victor Aguilar, previously deported and convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.
  • Jesus Morales, a wanted felon convicted of alien smuggling conspiracy.
  • Jose Ortiz, convicted of trafficking large quantities of cocaine.
  • Cuong Chanh Phan, convicted of second-degree murder.

Don't mistake those men for “asylum seekers.” They are predators. And California’s sanctuary policies shield them.

The Declaration of Independence reminds us that legitimate government exists “to secure these rights” — not for foreigners in defiance of the law but for citizens who consent to be governed under it. That is the basis of our system. That is what’s at stake.

This government belongs to Americans

The United States owes rights and protections to its citizens — not to those who break its laws and exploit its generosity. Yet, Democrat-run cities across the country have flipped that principle on its head.

New York. Chicago. Portland. Seattle. Los Angeles. City after city refuse to enforce basic law and order and make a mockery of their charters.

This must end.

Every foreign national who entered this country illegally must come under the jurisdiction of the federal and state constitutions — and face removal. Let them return home and wave their own flags instead of burning ours in the streets.

Donald Trump and his administration understand what’s at stake. The Constitution demands action. America is blessed to have a president willing to deliver it.

Punch a cop, get a charge — even if you’re in Congress



With a recent assault on the very federal law enforcement officers they are charged with overseeing, Democrats haven’t just embraced criminals; they’ve become them.

Last month, three Democratic lawmakers — Reps. Rob Menendez Jr., Bonnie Watson Coleman, and LaMonica McIver, all from New Jersey — led a mob of protesters in storming the Delaney Hall Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. They waited for a bus full of detainees to arrive, then rushed the open gate and physically clashed with federal officers.

Our republic will not survive if America’s elected leaders are allowed to act like this. They not only committed crimes in public but then hid behind their Article I powers as a shield.

This wasn’t symbolic. This was an elected mob laying hands on law enforcement.

The video tells the story: shoving, punching, and chaos. These three members of Congress — who represent more than two million Americans — assaulted officers doing their jobs. Then, astonishingly, they claimed they were the victims, despite clear footage proving otherwise.

All of this over what turned out to be nothing.

After the chaos, ICE officials offered the lawmakers a guided tour of the facility. The Democrats quietly admitted they found no signs of mistreatment. Their entire stunt, billed as a protest of conditions, collapsed under the weight of reality. They walked in demanding accountability and walked out with nothing but bad footage and a pending felony charge.

Yes, a felony.

Rep. McIver now faces a federal charge of assaulting a law enforcement officer, announced on May 20 by Acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba. President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have made it clear: This administration backs the rule of law. If you punch a cop, you get charged — even if you have a congressional pin on your lapel.

The left tried to frame the incident as “congressional oversight.” But oversight doesn’t mean storming gates or skipping security checks. ICE policy allows members of Congress to tour facilities — even unannounced. But it does not allow them to create security threats, bypass screening, or lead mobs onto federal property. Those procedures exist to protect staff, detainees, and lawmakers alike.

This was not oversight. It was lawlessness, pure and simple.

RELATED: Memo to Democrats: ‘Oversight’ isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Since President Trump restored control of the southern border, anti-border Democrats have become unhinged. No longer able to rely on waves of illegal crossings, they’ve begun imitating the tactics of the very criminal aliens they once defended — storming barriers, resisting authority, and attacking officers.

Now, that’s the legacy of the modern Democratic Party.

But legal consequences alone aren’t enough. Congress must act.

The House should censure all three lawmakers involved. Censure is not a punishment; it’s a statement of principle. And lawmakers have been censured for far less than leading an assault on federal agents. The House has a duty to uphold the integrity of its own body. That means sending a message: If you behave like a thug, you’ll be treated like one.

Our republic will not survive if America’s elected leaders are allowed to act like this. They not only committed crimes in public but then hid behind their Article I powers as a shield.

America’s founders warned about this.

In "Federalist 1," Alexander Hamilton posed a choice: Would Americans build a government based on “reflection and choice” — or surrender to “accident and force”? That question remains. If lawmakers now claim the right to break the laws they swore to uphold, we’re no longer living in a constitutional republic. We’re living under mob rule.

And if we let this slide — if Congress fails to hold its own accountable — then we’ll have no one to blame when the next mob storms another federal building under another political banner.

Democrats love to remind us: “No one is above the law.” Fine. Then prove it.

In Calling For Axing The Electoral College, Tim Walz Tells Swing State Voters To Get Lost

Democrats loathe the Electoral College because it deprives them of the unbridled power to silence their opposition.

What The Boston Massacre Trials Can Teach Us About Resisting The Allure Of Mob Rule

On the anniversary of the Boston Massacre, it is worth remembering how America passed its first major test in equal application of the law.

Merrick Garland’s Refusal To Protect Supreme Court Justices Endangers The Country

The responsibility for leaving conservative justices with hostile groups planted outside their doors rests with Merrick Garland.

Actor Tim Robbins expresses remorse about turning on the unvaccinated and the unmasked: 'We turned into tribal, angry, vengeful people'



Leftist actor Tim Robbins appeared on British comedian Russell Brand's podcast this week to retroactively denounce the politicization of health policies during the pandemic and to express remorse about his uncritical acceptance of the media's COVID-19 narrative.

In the Dec. 18 episode of Brand's podcast, Robbins, an Academy Award-winning actor, explained his journey from strict compliance with government edicts early in the pandemic to one of doubt about the inerrancy of so-called health experts and the official narrative constructed around COVID-19, vaccination, lockdowns, and masking.

Despite having initially "bought into it" and "adhering to the requests" made of him, Robbins explained that his real-life encounters were ultimately at odds with what he had otherwise been told about the pandemic, anti-lockdown protesters, and the unvaccinated. This generated a sense of cognitive dissonance, prompting him to doubt the official narrative.

What are the details?

Robbins said he was living in Los Angeles when the pandemic first struck.

Schools, bars, gyms, churches, and campgrounds were blocked off or shut down. Residents were confined to their homes. Mask-wearing was made mandatory. The state's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom likened the unvaccinated to drunk drivers. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti told the unvaccinated to prepare to lose their jobs.

"I bought into it. ... I was masking everywhere. I was keeping my social distance. I was adhering to the requests made of me, and I felt angry at people that didn't do that," Robbins told Brand.

Although he saw thriving areas that were not strictly following statist health protocols when he drove across the U.S., it was not until he visited the United Kingdom that Robbins acknowledged the possibility that he may have been wrong to unquestioningly accept the official pandemic narrative.

In Britain, he "noticed a lot of people were not adhering again to these requests made by their government. I thought, well, they're going to have a hard day coming up, that there will be some serious death here."

"When I saw that there wasn't a huge death rate [in Britain], after I witnessed personally what was happening, I started to wonder more and more about what we were being told and whether it was true or not."

The catastrophe of and for the unvaccinated that Robbins and others were guaranteed by the Western governments and the media hadn't come to be. He began to wonder what else wasn't so.

The actor recalled navigating through an anti-lockdown protest in London. Robbins hadn't joined because he supported the protest, but rather because he was curious.

\u201cMassive protest march in London today. Thousands and thousands arriving in Trafalgar Square. #NoVaccinePassports #NoVaccineMandates\u201d
— Tim Robbins (@Tim Robbins) 1642862430

"I saw the way that they were being described in the press, and it wasn't true," he said. "These were not, you know, National Front Nazis. These were liberals and lefties and people who believed in personal freedom."

Politicizing the pandemic

Robbins suggested that the pandemic was particularly politicized in the United States.

Brand concurred, suggesting that "there is a lot more political ideology at play than is perhaps wise, prudent, or even honest when the claim that is being made is that we are following science."

Robbins admitted, "At first, if you were a Democrat, when Trump was president, well, you weren't going to take that vaccine because it was Trump's vaccine, and then that seemed to somehow change. It was kind of Orwellian. It was like we are no longer at war with East Asia."

However, after the political winds shifted and Democrats assumed power during the pandemic, Robbins noted, "If you didn't take the vaccine, you were a Republican."

The end result, according to Robbins: "We turned into tribal, angry, vengeful people."

\u201cThis is such a powerful commentary by actor Tim Robbins (in discussion with Russell Brand) on the horrendous demonisation of those who questioned the response to Covid. \n\n@TimRobbins1\n@rustyrockets\u201d
— James Melville (@James Melville) 1671451301

Robbins previously told investigative reporter Matt Taibbi, "I think we lost a lot of ourselves during this time."

"I heard people saying [during the pandemic], 'If you didn’t take the vaccine and you get sick, you don’t have a right to a hospital bed.' It made me think about returning to a society where we care about each other. Your neighbor would be sick, and you’d bring over some soup. It didn’t matter what their politics were, you’re their f---ing neighbor," said Robbins.

The actor suggested to Taibbi that those who dehumanize and divide others "often think they're being virtuous."

Robbins accepts that he too was swept up into the ranks of the socially destructive.

"You go from someone that is inclusive, altruistic, generous, empathetic, to a monster. Where you want to freeze people’s bank accounts because they disagree with you," he said. "That’s a dangerous thing. That’s a dangerous world that we’ve created. And I say 'we,' because I was part of that. I bought into that whole idea early on."

While Robbins and others have admitted guilt, others would prefer to gloss over their dehumanization of those treated as pariahs for standing up to coercive pandemic protocols.

TheBlaze previously reported that Emily Oster, an economist at Brown University, demanded a "Pandemic Amnesty" in the pages of the Atlantic.

Unlike Robbins, Oster suggested that blind compliance to health edicts and demonization of dissenters "wasn't a moral failing" and that "we need to learn from our mistakes and then let them go. We need to forgive the attacks, too."

The Covid Redemption with Tim Robbins youtu.be