Voters reject elitist narratives, embrace Trump’s economic vision



Journalists continue to struggle with Donald Trump’s decisive election victory — and they are failing miserably. They have constructed a caustic narrative around his win, relying on tired tropes. The Huffington Post, for instance, published the headline, “Trump Just Ran the Most Racist Campaign in Modern History — and Won.” NPR reporter Margaret Low declared, “Donald Trump has won the presidential election ... the first time a convicted felon has been elected president after a campaign of hateful rhetoric to Latinos.”

This coverage mirrors the tone used by outlets such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Politico throughout the year leading up to the election, highlighting two significant problems.

The tactics that once effectively silenced opposition are losing their impact, signaling a major shift in the political landscape.

First, the media refuse to adapt. Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential victory, achieved despite nine years of media attacks, two impeachments, ongoing legal battles, disputed convictions, and even assassination attempts, underscores a new reality: Political insults are losing their effectiveness in shaping public opinion.

Historically, self-identified progressives have labeled adversaries as “racist” to rally public support, a tactic endorsed by senior communist organizer Eric Mann in his 2011 book, “Playbook for Progressives.” This strategy often succeeded because those accused would comply with demands to avoid association with such a charged term, even when their original position was reasonable or justified.

Trump, however, has consistently withstood these accusations and remained steadfast in pursuing his agenda. His resilience has encouraged others to stand by their principles, even as media critics brand them as bigoted or outdated.

The media should have realized this strategy’s declining effectiveness after Trump easily defeated 12 Republican challengers in the 2024 primaries and won 31 states in the general election. Yet they continue to rely on the race card, ignoring its diminishing influence.

Jimmy Kimmel’s tears

Second, they are out of touch. The chasm between media narratives and public sentiment became glaringly evident during and after the election. For example, former President Barack Obama faced backlash after attempting to chastise young black men for their lack of enthusiasm for Kamala Harris, attributing it to sexism. This viral moment sparked widespread criticism across the political spectrum, exposing a fundamental misreading of voters’ priorities, which extend far beyond identity politics.

Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s emotional reaction on election night — “It was a terrible night for women, children, the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who make this country go [...] and everyone who voted for him; you just don’t realize it yet” — highlighted the growing disconnect between some media figures and a large segment of the American public.

Journalists and pundits who continue to frame Trump’s victory as driven by racism and sexism often draw from critical race theory concepts taught in academia. These ideas include the notion of “whiteness” and the belief that American standards predominantly benefit those who align with “white culture.” This perspective enabled them to label Trump’s campaign as “the most racist in modern history” despite exit polls showing Trump gained support among black men, Latinos, Asians, women, and young voters between 2020 and 2024.

Instead of acknowledging that shifting demographics challenge their established narrative, some commentators intensified their rhetoric. A guest on Roland Martin’s show, for example, claimed, “These people are trying to fight their way into whiteness, and they are willing to sacrifice everything, including members of their own family, if they can grasp the ring.”

Statements like this, along with similar remarks from figures such as Jimmy Kimmel and Sunny Hostin — who accused women and minorities of voting against their own interests — reveal a troubling paternalism. These commentators fail to consider that individuals may be perfectly capable of determining their own best interests without input from media personalities.

Trust in media plummets

This disconnect highlights how many reporters and pundits see themselves as intellectuals with little to learn from the people they critique. They amplify voices that align with their narratives and criticize those that don’t, all while ignoring pressing concerns such as inflation, border security, and tax relief.

One major consequence of the media’s divisive rhetoric and reliance on identity politics has been a sharp decline in public trust in journalism. A 2023 Gallup poll revealed that only 34% of Americans had a "great deal" or "fair amount" of trust in mass media — a historic low.

This erosion of credibility has serious implications for our republican form of government, which depends on an informed citizenry. The 2024 election cycle worsened the issue, as many outlets doubled down on narratives disconnected from the realities of average Americans.

This growing credibility gap has fueled the rise of alternative media sources, some of which lack the rigorous fact-checking standards of traditional journalism. As a result, the media landscape has become more fragmented and polarized, making it harder for citizens to access objective, reliable information for their political decisions.

While much of the post-election analysis centered on identity politics and cultural issues, Trump’s economic messaging deserves closer attention. The years leading up to the 2024 election were marked by significant economic challenges, including persistent inflation, supply chain disruptions, and widespread concerns about job security due to automation and artificial intelligence.

Trump’s campaign successfully addressed these anxieties, particularly in Rust Belt states and rural areas that felt abandoned by globalization and technological advances. His promises of protectionist trade policies, infrastructure investment, and revitalized traditional manufacturing struck a chord with voters who believed the political establishment had prioritized coastal elites and multinational corporations over their needs.

This economic focus transcended racial and ethnic lines, boosting Trump’s support among minority voters. Meanwhile, many media outlets overlooked these concerns, choosing instead to focus on identity-based narratives. This oversight underscores the growing disconnect between coastal newsrooms and the economic realities experienced by much of the country.

Looking ahead, any serious analysis of American politics must confront these economic tensions and their role in reshaping traditional political alignments.

Will progressives wake up?

Trump’s political journey reflects the fable of "The Emperor’s New Clothes." Much like the child who dared to expose the emperor’s nakedness, Trump has laid bare the hollow rhetoric of elitist media and celebrity figures, who have long postured as moral and intellectual authorities.

Over the past nine years, Trump has consistently disproved claims that he threatens nonwhite Americans, a point underscored by his growing support from diverse demographics. Conservative leaders can learn from this by embracing and promoting American values instead of retreating in response to criticism.

As Democrats and progressives analyze their 2024 defeat and question their strategies, they often ignore a critical issue: the dismissive attitude many of their thought leaders display toward the middle class and self-made individuals. These groups form the backbone of America. By advocating for a vision that conflicts with the values and traditions of hardworking citizens, these leaders have relied on accusatory rhetoric to stifle dissent.

In the age of Trump, social media, and widespread access to information, Americans increasingly feel empowered to challenge these narratives. The tactics that once effectively silenced opposition are losing their impact, signaling a major shift in the political landscape.

Moving forward, the media and political leaders must adapt to this change. Instead of relying on tired accusations and divisive rhetoric, they must engage with the genuine concerns and values of the American people. Only by bridging this divide can they hope to regain relevance and rebuild trust in a rapidly evolving political environment.

Would Bill Buckley yell ‘stop’?



The year 2025 marks the centenary of modern conservativism’s founder, William F. Buckley Jr. But given the takeover of the Republican Party by Donald Trump, whether conservative still means what it once did is an open question. In these times it’s natural to ask: What would Bill have to say?

The question is the flip side of the related allegation — deployed in conservative circles by those confused, troubled, or even irate over the Trump ascendancy — which begins: “If Bill Buckley were alive today, he’d …”

'Drain the swamp' grates on many a conservative ear. But it is a Buckley course of action. His end is indistinguishable from Trump’s beginning.

He’d … what? Be bothered? Upset about Trump’s impact on the movement in its current state? Allied with those who see the Buckley legacy as one that prioritizes civility?

Maybe. Or maybe not. It is not difficult to imagine that the man who once proclaimed he “should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University” would think positively of the president-elect, and his populist tone, and his agenda, and even of what is becoming of conservatism, as the movement grapples with powerful influences and prolonged challenges, including those first faced during its Eisenhower-era infancy.

At the same time, a reasonable case can be made that Bill Buckley would cozy to conservative NeverTrumpism or find the 45th and soon-to-be 47th U.S. president wanting in other ways. Buckley wrote dozens of books, for example, while Trump boasts that he doesn’t even read books. And in a 2000 Cigar Aficionado reflection on presidential wannabes, WFB called the Queens developer a narcissist and demagogue, adding this zinger: “When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection.”

But there’s also evidence that the two men, in the Year of Our Lord 2024, might have proven more sympatico than not.

That evidence begins in Queens. Bill Buckley knew something of the place, along with the Big Apple’s other “outer boroughs.” And of their voters. A once-politician himself who challenged liberal Republican John V. Lindsay for mayor in 1965, Buckley — despite an Ivy League bearing that made him fodder for comedians and impersonators — connected with Bronx cops and Staten Island nurses and Brooklyn machinists. He was the enemy of their enemy.

So is Trump. In a few election cycles, the Buckley-backing chumps and deplorables of the 1960s hailing from outer boroughs and other places of elitist disdain would become better known as “Reagan Democrats.” Four decades later, their grandchildren would in turn become MAGA Republicans. The dots connecting Buckley 1965 and Trump 2016/2020/2024 are clearly there, if not always recognized.

What’s old is new again

The two men even had commonality in tone. In the inaugural issue of National Review, Buckley famously committed the magazine to fight the prevailing establishment’s destructive madness, declaring that his journal “stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or have the patience with those who so urge it.” Yelling is the stuff of bombast, distasteful to some patrician-bearing conservatives who prefer to sit athwart the sidelines and admonish leftism via quip or tweet or op-ed.

Worthwhile activities all. But insufficient if the march of leftist ideology through history is to be stopped. That work requires an agent of harshness, a disrupter, a doer of dirty work, brooking no accommodation, akin to John Wayne’s character, Ethan Edwards, in “The Searchers.” Such as Donald J. Trump.

Related to yelling is a more populist agitating, the kind Rush Limbaugh made famous for years as the principle American voice ridiculing the reigning culture and establishment, giving hope and encouragement and education to millions. Rush became America’s premier conservative. His style was not Buckleyesque, but then, whose is? Rush loved Bill and was beloved in return by the man who thrilled to see conservatism distilled broadly and convincingly through this radio maestro.

Rush, later, also championed Trump.

They’d have made a formidable Triple Entente.

About that National Review premiere: In it, Buckley highlighted “our convictions.” Seven decades later, his concerns remain au courant. An example: “The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so.” These and other thunderings are MAGA — spoken in a highbrow Buckley dialect.

Meanwhile, the enemies Buckley pointed to in 1955 — “social engineers” (“who seek to advance mankind to conform to scientific utopias”), “Fabian operators” (“bent on controlling both our political parties”), “Big Brother government,” “clever intriguers,” communists (their beliefs “satanic utopianism”), “union monopolies,” and “ideologues” (who “run just about everything”) — continue to run just about everything today.

“Drain the swamp” grates on many a conservative ear. But it is a Buckley course of action. His end is indistinguishable from Trump’s beginning. The two men are copacetic.

Narcissism aside, Buckley today surely would have compassion for the fellow entertainer (or did you never watch “Firing Line”?) over the relentless cries of “fascist,” “racist,” and “Hitler.” Long before a young Donald J. Trump could vote, WFB was being slurred as a “Nazi.” Gore Vidal infamously called him a “crypto Nazi” during a nationally televised debate. One can hear Buckley’s response — “I’ll sock you in your goddamn face, and you’ll stay plastered” — echoed in many ways a half-century later, addressed to smug, elite hate-purveyors.

A tectonic shift

Another similarity: On prioritizing Islam’s threat to the West, Trump — he of the decried “Muslim ban” –and Buckley would be of like mind. At the final National Review board meeting he attended, in 2006, Buckley charged the magazine’s editors with a special mission of concentrating on what he called “Islamofacism.” Check.

Whither WFB on the conservative movement? Is it sullied, even destined for collapse, because its political vehicle — the Republican Party — is in the hands of the man from Queens? Some say so. And some believe that William F. Buckley Jr. would agree were he alive today.

Then again, were he here, Bill might consider the latest election results as the heaving of tectonic political plates by once-enslaved voters who reject identity politics, which he deeply despised, and declare themselves no longer beholden to racial and gender blocs mandated by progressives and a neo-Marxist Democratic Party.

He might also conclude that fundamental things conservativism long hoped for and fought both for and against might best be advanced and maybe even achieved by an unlikely champion. By a jarring populist, short on etiquette, whose tongue was blunt instead of silver, who failed to get permission to lead, even by default, from the movement’s gatekeepers, but who was found to be appealing by the people in the telephone directory.

In Buckley parlance, one might say Donald J. Trump is immanentizing the conservative eschaton. About that, Bill would be yelling anything but stop.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Trump And Vance Should Immediately Push A Populist, Family-Friendly Agenda

Trump and Vance need to make dramatic populist moves now while GOP voters' appetite for economic libertarianism has dwindled.

All that matters is Kamala loses



I’m not a Donald Trump fan. From the start, I’ve detested him as a candidate but believed wholeheartedly in his “greatness agenda.” America first? Count me in. Build the wall? By all means. Straighten out trade. Reassert the national interest. Put China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia in their place. Make NATO pay up. Sounds good. Let’s go!

But let’s also not pretend. Trump is a marvelous entertainer but a poor politician. He was a mixed bag as president — great in some ways, terrible in others.

We know what a Harris-Walz administration will do, and that would spell disaster for the country.

He started no wars but failed to end any. (Maybe nobody could have.) The trade deals were good, the tax cuts were better, and the judges weren’t too bad — though Neil Gorsuch is no Antonin Scalia and Amy Coney Barrett is no great shakes.

Trump was not a good judge of character. At least half of his Cabinet undermined him at every turn, and a few were straight-up traitors. He could not manage the permanent bureaucracy, and in many ways the permanent bureaucracy managed him. And his deference to what my friend Lloyd Billingsley calls “white coat supremacy” during the COVID crisis was a downright disgrace.

Operation Warp Speed as Trump’s “greatest accomplishment”? Please. Even he doesn’t believe that any more.

But as my father often liked to remind me, “you can’t have nice things.” Or nice candidates. In the end, I was happy to vote for Trump in 2016 and I am happy to vote for him now, not because I think he can fulfill half of his promises but because I very much want Kamala Harris and all that she represents to lose.

The stakes

In July 2016, I co-founded American Greatness, an upstart online journal with grand aspirations that has lately fallen on hard times. But I was an outlier at my own company at the beginning because I was the only one of three founders who was outspokenly and ostentatiously “NeverTrump.”

I know, I know. Stick with me here. It gets better, I promise.

Longtime readers of Blaze News know this company has published a variety of views on Trump over the years. Glenn Beck, Steve Deace, and Daniel Horowitz, among others, have been unsparing in their criticism of Trump at times. So I am not alone.

But we also understand the stakes. We aren’t going to sacrifice the country or our kids to vindicate some misbegotten or perverted sense of “honor.”

Politics often requires trade-offs. It’s important not to mistake policy preferences for high principles. Given the choice between deeply flawed and certain disaster, let us pray it remains true that “God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America.”

When it came down to it, I voted for Trump in 2016, in cerulean blue California, because I despised his opponents more than I disliked him. My vote was a middle finger to his enemies … and to mine. That remains true today.

Oh, fascists? Up yours!

The fact is that they hate us. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and their confederates have spent the better part of eight years tarring Trump and his supporters as Nazis, fascists, “semi-fascists,” deplorables, domestic extremists, insurrectionists, and, most recently, “garbage.”

The very online left would say, “Well, if the shoe fits …” And I would say most of those people wouldn’t know a real fascist if a Blackshirt was kicking them in the face with a steel-toe boot while belting out “Giovinezza.”

Language is like currency. The late, great Lenny Bruce in his act more than 60 years ago tried to make the point that if you overuse a word — in his case, the N-word — you could drain it of its power. I’m not sure he succeeded in that case, but Democrats and leftists have done a fine job of taking the sting out of “Nazi” and “fascist.” Fascist, fascist, fascist. Nazi, Nazi, Nazi. All the time. They’ve debased the words. The barb is now worth less than a penny. It’s worth nothing at all.

Half the country, give or take, simply isn’t listening any more. The words no longer wound. They’re stripped of meaning. That’s been true for a while, I think. Eight years ago, when the claims were fresh, I wrote:

Enough of this. Snark will not do. Insinuation will not do. Conversation stoppers — “he’s a bigot,” “he’s a fascist” — absolutely will not do. “He’s a fascist” is not an argument. There can be no reasonable response. Over and over, reasonable people plead, “No, he’s not.” What they’re really saying is, “No, I’m not.” But who is listening? We’re called to be charitable. But what good is charity when the other side has made up its mind? The only fitting response is the middle finger. Or the back of the hand.

The politics of the middle finger are fine as far as they go, but they don’t go far enough. We need a proper realignment. It’s been in the works for quite some time even if it’s been slow to manifest.

The “old” Republican Party — the party of Bush and Dole and McCain and Romney and McConnell and Ryan — abhors Trump and his America First agenda. Worse, these Republicans abhor and reject the base. Erstwhile “conservative” or “rock-ribbed” Republicans including Dick Cheney and Arnold Schwarzenegger have endorsed the obviously illiberal Harris. George W. Bush has stayed mum, but it’s not a stretch to think he’ll vote for Harris if he votes at all. She is the safe bet for establishment Republicans like him.

They would surrender their country to preserve their phony “honor” for … what? It isn’t honor at all. It’s self-interest. It’s a profound misunderstanding of politics. It’s a death wish. No, thank you.

Happily, their time has passed. They’re essentially Democrats now. They are finished, whether they realize it or not.

The argument is over

The realignment is real and it’s ongoing. The old left-right distinctions are losing their salience. But who knows where it will lead?

A dear friend the other day said to me, “I don’t want either one of them to win.” I sympathize, but too bad. You’re getting one or the other. The Vaunted Ron DeSantis Juggernaut never materialized, the Great NeverTrump Hope Nikki Haley flamed out (and ended up endorsing Trump anyway), and, tell me, who is the Libertarian Party’s candidate this year again?

On the eve of the 2016 election, I wrote, “For me, it isn’t a matter of Trump winning. All that matters is she loses.” Hillary Clinton was a criminal who said sinister things behind closed doors while peddling bromides and clichés to the public. She was wholly unacceptable, even if Trump was less than desirable.

My expectations for Trump are not much greater today than they were then. “Put not your faith in princes” (or Barrons), as the psalmist says. But the stakes are as great if not greater today than they were eight years ago. We know what a Harris-Walz administration will do, and that would spell disaster for the country.

We’re no longer having an argument. Our opponents have made it quite clear. When Harris speaks of “unity,” she means, for us, surrender and supplication. We have nothing left to discuss. If we have a decent chance at turning the country around for ourselves and our posterity, then like Trump or not, Kamala Harris must lose.

Teamsters boss goes scorched-earth on Democratic Party: 'They have f***ed us over for the last 40 years'



Sean O'Brien, the general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, is a self-identified Democrat who has in recent years made no secret of his antipathy to elements of the GOP.

However, O'Brien — like the overwhelming majority of Teamsters — has recognized that the Democratic Party deserves even more of his ire.

Speaking to comedian Theo Von on the Monday episode of "This Past Weekend," O'Brien said, "I'll be honest with you, I'm a Democrat, but they have f***ed us over for the last 40 years."

"And for once, and not all of them, but for once, we're standing up as a union, probably the only one right now, saying, 'What the f*** have you done for us?'" continued O'Brien.

The Teamsters union, which has over 1.3 million members, announced in September that it would not endorse any candidate for president for the first time since 1988.

Straw polls conducted between April and July indicated that President Joe Biden had the support of the Teamsters. Following Biden's ouster, a majority of voting members twice selected Trump in polls for a possible Teamsters endorsement over Harris.

An electronic member poll conducted between July 24 and Sept. 25 showed that 59.6% of Teamsters supported Trump. Only 34% signaled support for Harris. A research phone poll conducted Sept. 9-15 similarly had Trump up by double digits, 58% to Harris' 31%.

"I'm getting attacked from the left, and we've given — since I've been in office, two and a half years — we've given the Democratic machine $15.7 million," continued O'Brien. "We've given Republicans about $340,000, truth be told. So it's like, you know, people say the Democratic Party is the party of the working people. They're bought and paid for by Big Tech."

'The f***ing system's broken.'

Extra to Trump's personal outreach to the unions, Blaze News previously noted that his selection of Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate helped curry favor with unions on account of Vance's support for tariffs and protectionist economic policies.

"For the short time we've worked together, he's been great on Teamster issues," O'Brien said of Vance on Fox News. "He's been right there on all our issues."

"If 60% of our members aren't supporting [the Democrats], the f***ing system's broken," O'Brien told Von. "You need to fix it. Stop pointing fingers at Sean O'Brien. Stop pointing fingers at the Teamsters union. Look in the mirror."

"Before, you always had Democrats fighting for working people, and, you know, Republicans, now we kind of see a switch where working people feel like, number one, they've been left behind by the Democratic Party. Two, you know, the Republicans say they want to be working-class [and] represent the working class. They have an opportunity to do it."

In August, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. similarly suggested that a political realignment was under way.

"I think there's been a bunch of realignments, of political realignments — about four or five throughout American history," Kennedy told Tucker Carlson. "I think we're going through one right now."

Kennedy emphasized that the Democratic Party of yesteryear is gone and that what remains, with the Harris "apparatus" at the helm, is an anti-democratic force synonymous with corporatism, military adventurism, and censorship.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

RFK Jr. eulogizes Democratic Party and explains America's latest 'great realignment'



Following his emotional endorsement Friday of President Donald Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sat down with Tucker Carlson to discuss his reasons for doing so and the political "realignment" under way that apparently made the decision all but inevitable.

Carlson told Kennedy at the outset that he found the decision unsurprising because "for all the areas where you disagree on specific issues, there's a consistent theme that I have noticed in both your lives, which is you both spent the majority of your life — in your case, your whole life — in the American ruling class and both of you decided that it was corrupt and that you were going to say so out loud, at great risk."

Kennedy acknowledged that many people, including some of his supporters, may have been shocked to learn last week that he was pausing his campaign and throwing his weight behind the Republican candidate. However, he noted that such surprise would likely have been the result of a misapprehension about the true nature of the current political landscape and the Democratic Party's place in it.

"I think there's been a bunch of realignments, of political realignments — about four or five throughout American history," Kennedy told Carlson. "I think we're going through one right now."

Kennedy emphasized that the Democratic Party of yesteryear is gone and that what remains, with the Harris "apparatus" at the helm, is an anti-democratic force synonymous with corporatism, military adventurism, and censorship, which would be unrecognizable both to his father, Robert F. Kennedy Sr., and to his uncle, President John F. Kennedy.

'There's been these big, profound realignments.'

According to Kennedy, the Democratic Party he parted ways with in October 2023 has been badly transmogrified, in part, by the "corrupt merger of state and corporate power that's happening in Washington, D.C., now, where our democracy has really been subverted by the industries that have taken over the regulatory agencies."

This has impacted, for instance, the party's approach to the environment.

Kennedy indicated that Democrats have de-prioritized habitat protection, wildlife conservation, and getting "toxins out of our kids" and are instead focused on "one environmental issue, which is this carbon orthodoxy."

Kennedy, who worked for decades as an environmental lawyer, has long argued there are far better ways to help the environment than geoengineering and carbon sequestration. He has also been highly critical in recent years of the Biden-Harris administration's massive subsidies for so-called green energy.

The Democratic obsession with emissions "ends up benefiting the oil companies and BlackRock and Goldman Sachs with offshore wind and carbon capture and $100 billion carbon capture projects, which is just the strip-mining of the middle class," Kennedy told Carlson.

"There's been these big, profound realignments, and it's not only on that issue," continued Kennedy.

'They're the party now of censorship.'

Kennedy suggested further that Democrats have "clung to this illusion" that various governmental institutions are still democratic despite their co-option and transformation into "sock puppets for corporate profit-taking"; that they are "white hats" fending off barbarians.

Even the institution of the presidency has been compromised, suggested Kennedy — that as was the case with Joe Biden, Democrats voting for Harris this time around will not be supporting an individual but rather the "apparatus" around the candidate.

"When you talk to Democrats about, you know, 'Do you really think it's a good idea to be electing somebody who cannot give an interview?' they say, 'Well ... you're electing the people around her, you're electing the apparatus,'" said Kennedy. "The apparatus, I don't have any faith in it. It's an apparatus that are neocons like Antony Blinken who are running us right up into World War III, and they are people who masterminded the censorship from inside the White House."

U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana gave Kennedy the green light last week to sue the Biden-Harris administration for coercing social media companies to engage in suppression and outright censorship of content containing free speech.

Kennedy cited the censorship detailed in Doughty's ruling as well as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's assertion in 2022 that "there's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy" as evidence of contemporary Democrats' censorial reflex and the party's distrust for the American people.

"They're the party now of censorship," said Kennedy, stressing that democracy and censorship are "absolutely incompatible."

"The first step to totalitarianism always begins with censorship," he told Carlson. "There's no time that we look back in history and say the people who were censoring speech were the good guys. They're always the bad guys. ... We know they're the guys who are going to end up cracking a whip on us all and being our overlords."

Kennedy noted that Trump, unlike Harris, is "deeply interested and well informed ... about what's happening to our kids, about chronic disease" and is "absolutely adamant about stopping the censorship and, you know, and making sure that we had free speech."

Concerning war and interventionism, Kennedy revealed that Trump has again distinguished himself from his Democratic rivals. While he previously conceived of Trump as the guy who "brought John Bolton and Mike Pompeo into office," Kennedy told Carlson that upon meeting Trump, he realized the former president was "really disillusioned with them to say the least."

Moving forward, Kennedy indicated he will be working to "get Trump elected" and will help "pick the people who will be running the government" should the American people re-elect the Republican.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Make no mistake — the 'JD Vance is weird' movement was very carefully calculated



As you may well know, Kamala Harris’ campaign and its media allies have taken to calling JD Vance “weird.”

“Yes, the same people who want to trans your kid, have abortion on demand, and open the borders say that a U.S. military veteran, who is a happily married father from the heartland, is weird,” says Liz Wheeler, pointing to the following Tweets from Kyle Mann and Greg Price that paint the perfect picture of how absurd such a statement is.

— (@)


— (@)

While the tactic of calling someone who is as normal as the rising sun weird seems like a strategy doomed to fail, apparently “it’s working,” says Liz.

Part of the movement’s success is attributed to the fact that this is “coordinated language from the losers in the mainstream media,” she explains, playing a montage of several examples of Vance and the Trump/Vance campaign being called “weird.”

What's REALLY Behind 'JD Vance Is WEIRD' | Ep 5youtu.be

“They were clearly given talking points,” she says. “The question is: Where did they get them from?”

“Undoubtedly they got the word ‘weird’ from focus groups who most likely found that the word weird resonated with liberal women voters” and “probably because focus groups found that when Kamala Harris runs on her own record, people ardently dislike her and reject her policies” says Liz.

“This strategy is actually very elementary. It's meant to appeal to the shallowest part of human nature, but here's the reason why they're utilizing this strategy. ... They are trying to assassinate JD Vance's character to distract from the fact that the Democrats are perverted commies who hate us. And JD Vance has committed the cardinal sin against the commies of being a Conservative Christian white man happily married with kids who goes to church and loves America. The Democrats hate that,” she explains.

However elementary the tactic may be, it’s effective because “presidential campaigns are not policy debates” but rather culture wars.

“Democrats understand how to use the culture or even human nature to win because they control the culture and they know how to harness it,” says Liz, adding that this “killer instinct” is the one thing Democrats have that Republicans don’t.

Unfortunately, this repeated defaming of JD Vance is adding up — the Ohio senator’s “popularity rating just in the last week has dropped nine points.”

“There's even a report that President Trump is regretting the fact that he picked JD Vance to be his vice presidential running mate,” says Liz, adding that she hopes this is nothing more than a nasty rumor.

Regardless of the veracity of the hearsay, “The 'JD Vance is weird' language ... is intended to also target how Trump feels about JD Vance in order to breed chaos in the Trump campaign in these final months before the election,” says Liz.

“Again — the left has this killer instinct. They have studied their enemy; they know their enemy.”

“If there’s one thing we should learn from the ‘JD Vance's weird’ narrative it’s that the Democrats are like sharks. They get just a whiff of blood and BAM — they'll gut you,” she says.

But according to Liz, there is an antidote. To hear it, watch the episode above.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

JD Vance cuts straight to the heart of what animates Trump's nationalism — and it's not 'just an idea'



The National Conservatism Conference is a project of the Edmund Burke Foundation, chaired by Israeli-American philosopher Yoram Hazony. For years, NatCon has offered conservatives of different stripes and from different countries a rallying point to discuss ways of reinforcing, improving and thinking about their respective nation-states.

The organizers define "National Conservatism" as "a movement of public figures, journalists, scholars, and students who understand that the past and future of conservatism are inextricably tied to the idea of the nation, to the principle of national independence, and to the revival of the unique national traditions that alone have the power to bind a people together and bring about their flourishing."

The attempt earlier this year by socialist officials in Belgium to shut down a NatCon conference highlighted the perceived threat posed by speakers at these conferences — to leftist internationalism, globalism, and other schemes aimed at the erasure of borders and individual sovereign states. Some speakers ostensibly also threaten libertarian agendas.

'America is a nation. It is a group of people with a common history and a common future.'

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) revealed in an address at NatCon Wednesday the fundamental understanding underpinning his economic nationalism — an understanding that both attracted him to President Donald Trump's America First agenda and justifies the kind of protectionism that Vivek Ramaswamy criticized at the conference a day earlier.

According to Vance, while America was founded "on great ideas," it is not, as some have suggested, reducible to "just an idea."

"America is a nation. It is a group of people with a common history and a common future," said Vance. "One of the parts of that commonality as a people is that we do allow newcomers to this country, but we allow them on our terms, on the terms of the American citizens, and that's the way that we preserve the continuity of this project from 200 years past to hopefully 200 years in the future."

The senator reflected on the generations of his family who came up in central Appalachia and others like them — "people who love this country, not because it's a good idea but because, in their bones, they know that this is their home and it will be their children's home, and they would die fighting to protect it."

Vance emphasized that the people who have "fought for this country, who have built this country, who have made things in this country, and who would fight and die to protect this country if they were asked to" were not motivated to sweat, bleed, and potentially give their all for an abstraction — the idea of America — but rather for their homes, their families, and their children's future.

Vance indicated that while he was initially a critic of President Donald Trump, he became a "convert" upon recognizing that Trump's America First agenda was not devoted to the protection of an idea but rather to the protection and prioritization of concrete realities, namely the American people and their physical homeland.

Vance's citizen-centered nationalism accounts for his desire to secure the border, to axe immigration policies that flood the market with cheap foreign labor, to reverse the trend of de-industrialization and offshoring, and — as suggested in a recent New York Times interview — to apply "as much upward pressure on wages and as much downward pressure on the services that the people use as possible."

'There are still these weird little pockets of the old consensus that continue to bubble to the surface and continue to fight us on all of the most important questions.'

Blaze News previously reported that Ramaswamy suggested at the NatCon conference that moving forward, the America First movement has the choice of embracing one of two types of nationalism: "national protectionis[m]" — what some have alternatively referred to as economic populism — or "national libertarianis[m]." He advocated for national libertarianism and intimated that Vance is partial to national protectionism.

National protectionism, according to Ramaswamy, is animated by a desire to ensure that "American workers earn higher wages and American manufacturers can sell their goods for a higher price, by protecting them from the effects of foreign competition." National protectionists apparently also "believe in reforming the regulatory state to redirect its focus to helping American workers and manufacturers."

In his speech Wednesday, Sen. Vance made no secret of his national protectionism, instead doubling down on the kind of commentary that has sent libertarian observers into fits of rage.

Vance, who stands a good chance of becoming Trump's running mate, insisted, for instance, that America should not let China "make all of our stuff" and should instead re-industrialize America.

"Even the libertarians, even the market fundamentalists — and I think we have a few in the audience, and we won't beat up on you too much," said Vance, "even they acknowledge that you can't have unlimited free trade with countries that hate you. It'd be the equivalent of allowing the Nazi Germans in 1942 to make all of our ships and missiles."

"People recognize that that era has come to a close. Even the people who are generally going to disagree with us about how much to protect American industry from this point forward agree that you can't let the Chinese make all of your stuff," continued the Ohio senator. "And yet I will say that as much as we've made some great progress, there are still these weird little pockets of the old consensus that continue to bubble to the surface and continue to fight us on all of the most important questions."

Vance also noted that the "real threat to American democracy is that American voters keep on voting for less immigration, and our politicians keep on rewarding us with more."

He suggested that while Western elites are have been more than happy to flood "the zone with non-stop cheap labor," immigration has "made our societies poorer, less safe, less prosperous, and less advanced."

Jason Miller, senior adviser for the Trump campaign, indicated Monday that the former president is poised to announce his running mate within a week's time. Vance, whose name has been raised in the past by the campaign and who reportedly received a vetting package, appears to be a top contender for the role. As of Thursday morning, Vance — whose speech appeared to resonate well with Donald Trump Jr. — was the top named pick on Polymarket.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Potential Trump Cabinet pick Vivek Ramaswamy wants America First movement to lean libertarian



Ohio businessman Vivek Ramaswamy is convinced that President Donald Trump is going to win in November. Ramaswamy, a potential Cabinet pick, is, however, uncertain about what making America great again means to some of those who may ultimately claim victory with Trump come Election Day.

In a speech Tuesday evening at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, D.C., Ramaswamy identified two dominant branches within the America First movement and indicated which he thinks is more likely to bear fruit.

In his remarks, Ramaswamy noted how Trump effectively landed the killing blow against the neoliberal consensus, offering instead a "nationalist vision for America's future." While the America First movement could apparently agree that nationalism is the way to go, Ramaswamy expressed concern about what kind of nationalism would dominate in the years to come: national protectionism, which some might alternatively recognize as economic nationalism, or national libertarianism, which he favors.

National protectionism, according to Ramaswamy, is animated by a desire to ensure that "American workers earn higher wages and American manufacturers can sell their goods for a higher price, by protecting them from the effects of foreign competition." National protectionists apparently also "believe in reforming the regulatory state to redirect its focus to helping American workers and manufacturers."

Judging from Ramaswamy's comments, it appears he figures Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance (R) — a favorite to become Trump's running mate — for a champion of the protectionist branch of the America First movement.

Vance has, after all, signaled a willingness to use statist interventions to improve the lot of Americans, as in the case of raising the minimum wage. The Ohio senator recently drew the ire of libertarians by advocating in a New York Times interview for "applying as much upward pressure on wages and as much downward pressure on the services that the people use as possible."

The national libertarianism advocates alternatively "care foremost about making sure that our trade and immigration policies do not compromise our national security and national identity, in ways that neoliberal policies inadvertently did."

'We don't want to replace a left-wing nanny state with a right-wing nanny state.'

National libertarians "don't believe in reimagining the regulatory state, but instead believe in shutting it down — not because National Libertarians are agnostic to the plight of American workers and manufacturers but because it is their profound conviction that the regulatory state is indeed the enemy itself," said Ramaswamy.

Despite railing against the old consensus, Ramaswamy advocated in his speech for the kind of deregulation that previous National Conservatism speakers indicated was symptomatic of the outgoing liberal regime — the kind of deregulation that elements of the protectionist group might otherwise be resistant to.

After detailing the divergence between these two branches of America First nationalism when it comes to the regulatory state, immigration, and trade, Ramaswamy underscored that he is partial to the national libertarian view because he believes it "is the way to help American workers and manufacturers."

"The National Libertarians — and if it's not obvious already, that's the camp I'm in — believe that we won't beat the left by adopting its methods," Ramaswamy said in his conclusion. "We don't want to replace a left-wing nanny state with a right-wing nanny state. Instead our goal is to dismantle the nanny state and its regulatory apparatus altogether, permanently, once and for all; to metaphorically burn its edifice and then to burn the ashes. And if we succeed in doing so, that will mark the beginning of an American revival that starts with the radical principle of our Founding: The people we elect to run the government will once again be the ones who actually run the government."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Leftists bereft after Le Pen's National Rally once again trounces Macron's establishment party



Early last month, establishmentarians were utterly humiliated in the European parliamentary elections where right-leaning parties enjoyed significant gains. One of the most telling showings was in France, where Marine Le Pen's National Rally ran circles around French President Emmanuel Macron's pro-European Renaissance Party, more than doubling its votes.

The continental trouncing was so embarrassing as to prompt Macron, who already lacked a majority in the French parliament, to call snap national elections on June 30 and July 7.

Macron tweeted, "I have confidence in the ability of the French people to make the fairest choice for themselves and for future generations."

On Sunday, the supermajority of eligible French voters cast ballots, fairly choosing to rid the country of Macron and his ilk.

Le Pen's National Rally and its allies reportedly secured 33.1% of the vote Sunday. Macron's centrist coalition couldn't even place second, instead coming third with 20.8% after the New Popular Front, a leftist coalition, which secured 28% of the vote.

'Democracy has spoken.'

CNN indicated that National Rally is poised to secure the most seats in the National Assembly but may prove unable to net the 289 seats necessary for an absolute majority, meaning the country may end up with a hung parliament. Le Pen's party and its allies are currently expected to pick between 230 and 280 seats.

However, should the right-leaning party prevail in the second round of voting on Sunday, National Rally President Jordan Bardella, Le Pen's protégé, will likely become the next prime minister. With Bardella running parliament, Macron would effectively be a lame duck until the end of his term, which runs out in 2027.

Bardella indicated Monday that the country has before it the decision between national unity, the well-being of the republic, and the furtherance of its values, or rule by an "alliance of the worst and the extreme left."

Le Pen told a crowd Sunday, "Democracy has spoken, and the French people have placed the National Rally and its allies in first place — and has practically erased the Macronist bloc."

Le Pen and Bardella both stressed that the next round of voting is critically important for the fate and future of the country.

Liberals further afield bemoaned the result. Donald Tusk, Poland's prime minister, for instance, said, "This is all really starting to smell dangerous."

Tusk added on X, "They love Putin, money and power without control. And they are already in power or are reaching for it in the East or West of Europe. They are joining ranks in the European Parliament."

Spain's socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez similarly whined about the success of French rightists, noting, "The advance of the far right in France isn't unconnected with what's happening in other parts of the world — including in Spain — where we're seeing how, directly or indirectly," reported Al Jazeera.

"The far right is advancing institutionally and in the opinion polls," added Sanchez.

The mainstream media leaned into the tired and ineffective suggestion that France's right-leaning populists were Nazis reborn.

France24 concern-mongered that the elections "could put France's government in the hands of a far-right party for the first time since World War II," discounting the Nazis' leftist nature.

The liberal publication beat this dead horse repeatedly, reiterating, "Victory for RN would lead to France's first far-right government since the Nazi-allied Vichy Regime."

NBC News similarly amplified the preferred narrative, noting, "Voters across France are casting ballots in the first round of an exceptional parliamentary election that could put France’s government in the hands of nationalist, far-right parties for the first time since the Nazi era."

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni suggested that the establishment's smear campaign against right-leaning politicians in Europe had once again proven toothless.

"The constant attempt to demonize and corner people who don't vote for the left ... is a trick that fewer and fewer people fall far," said Meloni.

While the media fruitlessly vilified the people's top choice of party, Macron planted the seed of violence, suggesting that electoral success on the part of National Rally could push "people towards a civil war."

Sure enough, after it became clear the party critical of unchecked immigration, a detached political elite, and ruinous economic policies was set to win, radicals — including Pro-Hamas demonstrators and Antifa thugs — began rioting. The Daily Mail reported that riot police were dispatched across Paris, where rioters launched incendiary devices, looted, and smashed up various establishments.

After a night of their comrades clashing with police, far-left politicians began urging Macron's supporters to support them to prevent National Rally from securing power.

Clémentine Autain, a member of the New Popular Front, said in an X post Monday, "The far right is at the gates of power. We must do everything to prevent them from winning and to open up hope with the New Popular Front."

The Telegraph indicated that Gabriel Attal, Macron's prime minister, has advised his party's supporters to support the radical left if the alternative was Le Pen's National Rally, stressing they had a moral duty to "prevent RN from winning an absolute majority."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!