President Donald Trump obliterates Venezuelan drug boats smuggling loads of fentanyl into the United States, and the left accuses him of starting a war.
But it’s Venezuela’s narco‑terrorist regime that’s declared war on the United States, Mark Levin says, and President Trump has every right to respond as he sees fit.
Levin condemns radical left-wing pundits, like MS NOW’s Rachel Maddow, for accusing the Trump administration of starting a war with Venezuela.
“I don’t understand why we’re going to war with Venezuela, and I’m not sure the administration is even bothered to try to come up with anything even internally coherent,” she whined on the December 2 episode of “The Rachel Maddow Show.”
“Let me help you out, dingbat. Let me help you out,” Mark Levin fires back. “They are smuggling more drugs in the United States directly and through Mexico and with communist China than any other country on the face of the earth.”
For the first time in decades, he says, we have a president who actually takes seriously the Monroe Doctrine — an 1823 policy long abandoned or rejected by weak prior administrations that essentially says, “If something goes on in our hemisphere that affects our country, it’s our business, and we’re going to do something about it,” even if that means military action.
The accusation that Trump committed a war crime by striking a Venezuelan drug boat twice is just “sick” Democrat nonsense, Levin says.
“If another government ... headed by a narco-terrorist is using the power of that government and the resources of that government, of that country, to kill American citizens — it doesn’t matter if they do it with fentanyl drugs; it doesn’t matter if they do it with biochemicals; it doesn’t matter if they poison our water or whatever — these are acts of war,” he asserts.
He then mocks the pearl-clutching Democrats shedding fake tears because narco-terrorists aren’t being politely handcuffed and read Miranda rights.
It’s really simple, he says. “Look at that, a drug boat’s coming. I think we’re going to blow it out of the water. Yes.”
The Constitution, Levin says, gives the president, as the commander in chief, the right to order military actions (like blowing up Venezuelan drug boats) without a formal declaration of war.
He explains that throughout American history, the majority of military actions issued by presidents occurred without Congress declaring war first.
Back in 1801, President Jefferson launched a full overseas naval war against the Barbary pirate states, which were attacking and kidnapping American merchant ships and sailors, without any formal declaration of war.
Calling Trump a war criminal is just proof that it’s not about democracy or the Constitution for Democrats. It’s about ideology.
“They’re on the side of the enemy,” Levin says.
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Did Halle Berry just go MAGA?
Sadly no. But the Oscar-winner did take a strong stand against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s chances at becoming the next U.S. president.
Former video store clerk turned Oscar-winner Quentin Tarantino unloaded on this actor in ways that you just don’t do in Hollywood circles.
Did Berry cite his abominable record in the Golden State? His silly social media memes designed to out-Trump Trump? His state’s abysmal record on homelessness, gas prices, and more?
Maybe she cited those super-creepy leg crosses?
Nope. The actress is anti-Newsom due to a single bill that she feels could help menopausal women. Turns out Newsom doesn’t support the Menopause Care Equity Act, which would have, according to Time, “ensured insurance coverage for evidence-based treatments and required physician training: practical, cost-effective steps backed by leading medical experts.”
"And with the way he's overlooked women, half the population, by devaluing us in midlife, he probably should not be our next president either. Just saying."
Meanwhile some heavy Hollywood hitters are flooding the zone for Newsom’s 2028 presidential campaign because, as they see it, he’s a “fighter.”
Now if he could only fight on behalf of his fellow Californians ...
Rachel Maddow gets the big bucks for a reason. She’s the biggest draw on her low-rated MS NOW network, and she’s as stubborn as the proverbial mule.
How stubborn? You know that Russian collusion hoax she helped peddle for far too long? Well she’s still living in a pre-Mueller Report world. In fact, her recent appearance on “The Late Show” was hilarious for all the wrong reasons.
“I don’t know what Putin has on [Trump], but he works for Putin, and it’s an embarrassment to this country.”
Stephen Colbert, to the shock of no one, didn’t correct the MS NOW anchor. The only surprise from the segment was that neither Colbert nor Maddow brought up the “very fine people” hoax for good measure ...
RELATED: Why Gavin Newsom’s Bible quotations should alarm Christians — before it’s too late
This prince isn’t a fan of kings.
Prince Harry also visited “The Late Show” this week, and he proved a quick study on the show’s demographic. Think TDS sufferers and shut-ins. Except Meghan Markle’s lesser half couldn’t even get the show’s audience on his side.
Harry pretended to interrupt Colbert’s nightly monologue Wednesday. The two exchanged a few words, including how Harry wanted to endear himself to Americans by starring in a Christmas movie. Besides, he argued, Americans are obsessed with royalty.
Colbert scoffed at the idea, setting up this droll quip.
“Really? I heard you elected a king,” Harry said.
The crowd, to everyone’s shock, booed and groaned. That response was brutal, but imagine the reaction he got when he returned home ...
Did Cartman’s creators lose their nerve?
We all know that Trey Parker and Matt Stone cast aside decades of apolitical comedy to skewer Trump this season on “South Park.”
You never go the full “Saturday Night Live.” But they did.
Now Parker and Stone are wrestling with a long-delayed project described as a “slave comedy.” The film’s original premise had a black slave re-enactor learning that his white girlfriend’s family once owned slaves in the pre-Civil War South.
It’s a provocative setup, the kind that the “South Park” duo once would tackle sans fear. But now? The pair just signed a billion-plus deal with Paramount, and their TDS-themed “South Park” season has made them beloved in the media and the DNC. (But we repeat ourselves.)
Would they risk that love and affection by creating an unwoke comedy?
Regardless, the film is troubled, to say the least. The title was originally slated for a 2025 release, but now the best-case scenario will have it land in theaters in 2027. That’s assuming they get the actual film done. A new report suggests major reshoots are in order.
Let’s hope for their sake they didn’t “put a chick in it! Make her lame and gay!”
BD Wong made a tasteless joke on social media.
Never mind that the vast majority of people missed it completely. And a good portion of that group is probably asking themselves, "BD who?"
As a woke revolution hold-out, the veteran actor is determined to grovel like it's 2020 and so posted this overwrought gesture of self-flagellation:
As most people in hot water do, I deleted it for Damage Control but it’s out there & continues to hurt & disappoint & I’m really sorry about the hurt part. Super dumb, but I tried to follow the "Wrong Answers Only" prompt with the wrongest answer. This succeeded only in that it was Super Wrong. I know nobody gets a free pass. I’m sorry if this #wtfbd moment tarnished any respect you may’ve had for me. & thanks if you advocate for an internet that’s safe for everybody.
Apologies are fine. He trafficked in a crude gag on social media, and some people didn’t get the joke or appreciate the irreverent tone.
Still can we stop pretending that we can be “hurt” by a tacky or tasteless joke? Or do we need to keep up the Apology ToursTM in perpetuity?
Did Paul Dano forget to be kind and rewind his VHS tape?
Former video store clerk turned Oscar-winner Quentin Tarantino unloaded on Dano in ways that you just don’t do in Hollywood circles.
Here’s what the “Inglourious Basterds” director said about Dano, best known for films like “There Will Be Blood,” “The Batman,” and “Love and Mercy.”
"And the flaw [in ‘There Will Be Blood’] is Paul Dano," Tarantino said. "Obviously it's supposed to be a two-hander, and it's also so drastically obvious that it's not a two-hander. ... He is weak sauce, man. He's a weak sister.”
It could be worse. Tarantino could have said Dano has ugly feet.
Former Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris said the quiet part out loud when she wrote in her new book, "107 Days," that her first choice for a vice presidential candidate in the 2024 election was not Tim Walz — but Pete Buttigieg.
And not only did she admit that Walz was not her first choice, but that she didn’t pick Buttigieg as her running mate because he is gay.
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who is gay, sat down with Harris for an interview and put her in the hot seat over her decision.
“I guess I’d ask you to just elaborate on that a little bit. It’s hard to hear with you running, as you know, you’re the first woman elected vice president, you’re a black woman and a South Asian woman elected to high office, very nearly elected president. To say that he couldn’t be on the ticket effectively because he was gay is hard to hear,” Maddow said, disappointed.
“No, no, no, that’s not what I said, that he couldn’t be on the ticket because he is gay,” Harris responded, before trying to explain herself.
“To be a black woman running for president of the United States and as a vice presidential running mate, a gay man, with the stakes being so high, it made me very sad, but I also realized it would be a real risk, no matter how, you know, I’ve been an advocate and an ally of the LGBT community my entire life,” she said.
BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler is floored.
“Imagine if this were a Republican saying what Kamala Harris just said. Imagine if a Republican went on cable news after having lost the presidential election,” Wheeler says.
“Imagine if a Republican said, ‘Actually, my first choice for vice presidential running mate, I decided against because he was gay.’ The left’s heads would explode. They would be screeching and screaming melting down like the wicked witch of the West, calling that Republican a bigot, a hateful homophobic bigot,” she continues.
And instead of admitting that she didn’t choose Buttigieg because he’s gay, she laid the blame at the feet of Americans who wouldn’t vote for him.
“Kamala Harris, her answer, she said she didn’t disqualify Pete Buttigieg because he’s gay, because she’s personally prejudiced. She disqualified — she decided not to choose him because he’s gay because you’re prejudiced,” Wheeler says.
“She didn’t have time to contend with the homophobic masses. She didn’t have time to re-educate the Christians, the terrible, hateful Christians who hate Pete Buttigieg because he’s gay,” she continues, adding, “She’s dripping with disdain for you, but she’s above board.”
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.
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com