During a discussion last night about some of the increasingly radical positions being taken by socialist candidates in the Democrat Party, Jennings argued that the controversy surrounding American holidays is revealing something much deeper about the movement itself.

No one else had been willing to admit this, up until now.

His point was simple — when political candidates start attacking traditions that have been part of American life for generations, voters should pay attention to what those attacks actually say about their view of the country.

Jennings called these a “window” into the anti-American worldview of the communists that are attempting to do a hostile takeover of the Democrat Party.

He specifically brought up Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong, who has openly called for ‘canceling’ Thanksgiving, before turning his fire to U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, the Michigan Democrat who has also drawn attention for his comments about the Fourth of July.

JENNINGS: “When you’re so crazy that Bernie Sanders and AOC won’t even endorse you, you’re pretty far out there!”

“I think these holiday conversations are actually valuable.”

“She hates Thanksgiving. Today, our own K-file here at CNN uncovered the fact that over in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed wants to get rid of the 4th of July.”

Jennings argued that these positions deserve more attention because they offer voters a glimpse into the underlying worldview of the people making them.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins immediately pushed back, pointing out that El-Sayed had specifically talked about getting rid of fireworks rather than eliminating the Fourth of July itself.

COLLINS: “I think he said we should get rid of fireworks.”

Collins was essentially trying to sanitize and downplay El-Sayed’s comments, but Jennings was having none of it.

JENNINGS: “He was very critical of the 4th of July.”

COLLINS: “Getting rid of fireworks is different than getting rid of the 4th of July.”

That distinction clearly wasn’t going to satisfy Jennings.

He believed Collins was focusing too narrowly on the literal wording while missing the broader point he was trying to make about the political movement behind these candidates.

JENNINGS: “I think you’re downplaying the message…”

“I think these are windows into the souls of these anti-American, radical communists.”

Jennings then connected the criticism of individual holidays to what he sees as a total rejection of American culture and tradition.

JENNINGS: “If you hate Thanksgiving and you hate the 4th of July, what you’re really saying is I hate some of the pillars that undergird American culture.”

That, Jennings said, creates a much bigger political problem for candidates who are trying to convince ordinary Americans that they should be trusted with running their communities.

His question was essentially: how do you convince voters that you’re fighting for their interests while simultaneously attacking traditions that many of those same voters consider central to American life?

JENNINGS: “And how are you going to have a conversation with a voter about affordability or public safety or anything else, if you’re trying to get rid of Thanksgiving and the 4th of July?”

Jennings saved his best one liner for the end.

The panel wasn’t happy about it, but Jennings had already made his point. It landed for anyone who was listening at home.

To him, these attacks on Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July aren’t meaningless culture-war distractions. There’s something much deeper going on.

They’re a pretty good indication of where some of these candidates actually stand when it comes to America itself.

For Jennings, the holidays are a window into whether you actually cherish America as a nation, and the traditions that come with it.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

The day was finally here. The stage was set. This was the moment so many had been waiting for since the start of the pandemic: Anthony Fauci would have to face Congress and the American people.

He wou…

Read more

For months, President Trump had been hinting that his administration was preparing to release information about America’s elections that the public had never seen before.

Last night, he did exactly th…

Read more

Every once in a while, someone who spent years buying into the media’s narrative about President Trump publicly admits they got it wrong.

That’s exactly what happened on CNBC this morning.

Billionaire …

Read more

Speaking about the rise of some of the Democratic Party’s most radical figures, Hanson argued that there is an uncomfortable pattern hiding in plain sight that almost nobody in politics or media is willing to talk about openly.

According to Hanson, many of the loudest anti-American voices on the modern left aren’t people whose families have been rooted in the country for generations.

They’re often first or second-generation immigrants whose families came to the United States from countries that were politically disastrous, economically dysfunctional, or outright failures.

And in his view, that isn’t a coincidence.

HANSON: “One of the things that’s not being talked about and I know I’ll get criticized for this but here it is…”

“If you look at the candidates, Chevalier, and AOC, and Rashida Tlaib, and Mamdani, and I could go on…”

“But the kingpins, they’re first or second generation…immigrants.”

Hanson wasn’t making an argument about immigration itself, but rather his point was about incentives and political culture.

He argued that many of these politicians arrived in America — or were raised by parents who arrived in America — and quickly learned that within certain corners of the political left, attacking the country that gave their families opportunity was not only accepted, but rewarded.

HANSON: “And they come from areas that, to be candid and a little blunt, are failed miserable places, such as Ghana or the Caribbean, or many Latin American countries, or Mexico.”

“Almost 50-60% of them are.”

“So they come to this country either with their parents or their parents came and they were born. And they sense, they put their feelers up…and they learn very early on that if you trash this country, the left will protect you and advance you.”

Subscribe now

That, Hanson argued, explains a lot of the rhetoric Americans hear every day from some of the party’s most prominent ‘progressive’ voices.

In his telling, the issue isn’t class resentment or economic struggle either. Many of the politicians he referenced grew up comfortably or became wealthy themselves.

Yet despite the opportunities America provided them, Hanson says what comes through most often is resentment rather than gratitude.

He labeled this; “contempt.”

HANSON: “And no matter how much money you have — AOC’s parents were pretty affluent. Ilhan Omar claims she was worth $30 million. Mamdani’s a multimillionaire settler colonialist from Uganda.”

“And when you look at all of them, they have nothing but contempt.”

Subscribe now

That was really the heart of his argument.

If America is truly the irredeemable, oppressive, fundamentally broken country that many Democrat politician describe, Hanson asked an obvious question:

HANSON: “Then don’t come! There’s no reason you have to come.”

“You came here because it was prosperous and safe, and there was not inbred tribal racism as in all these countries.”

Hanson then turned his fire toward the repeated accusations of genocide and oppression that frequently dominate Democrat rhetoric.

According to him, many of the countries these politicians or their families left behind experienced levels of ethnic violence, dictatorship, and political repression that most Americans can barely imagine.

He narrowed in on Somali Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.

HANSON: “Apparently, the people came with Ilhan Omar because they were on the side of the genocidal [Mohamed] Siad Barre.”

“They keep saying genocide, genocide!”

“The only person that really is a genocidal maniac was Siad Barre, the head of the Somali government, of which a lot of these immigrants’ parents were part of, including Ilhan Omar.”

Whether people agree with Hanson or not, he touched a nerve because he stepped directly into a conversation that most politicians — and even media figures — avoid entirely.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

If you watch one exchange, make sure it’s this one.

The conversation had been circling around immigration for several minutes when the panel began hammering the Trump administration over its enforcement policies, arguing that deportations and arrests of illegal aliens were being carried out in an inhumane way.

It was the kind of discussion that usually follows a familiar script.

The hosts make the emotional case against enforcement. Republicans try to explain why enforcement is necessary. Everyone talks past each other.

But this exchange went in a different direction.

As the criticism intensified, Vance calmly pushed back and made what was really a commonsense argument: enforcing immigration laws is never going to look pretty, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen.

It was an expert 6-1 takedown.

VANCE: “We have to strike a balance, of course, between enforcing our laws.”

“We don’t want to dehumanize people…”

“Law enforcement is always inherently not a very pretty process. Especially when you’re dealing sometimes with violent people, with people who are resisting arrest.”

He then turned his attention to something he says often gets lost in media coverage of immigration enforcement.

According to Vance, many of the stories presented as examples of innocent people being targeted don’t always tell the full story.

VANCE: “Some of the people that I have been told by the media were completely peaceful, had never violated any laws, you actually look into the record and you find out that those people were actually being violent or they did have a criminal record.”

“They had a sex traffic conviction.”

Subscribe now

That immediately drew a response from Sunny Hostin, who argued that most of the people being arrested and deported are not criminals at all. She was visibly emotional.

HOSTIN: “The majority of people DON’T have criminal records. The majority of people that ICE is rounding up and taking…taking out of their homes, from their families, they’re separating families!”

“They’re using children as bait. The majority are not criminals!”

Vance tried to jump back in.

VANCE: “But can I respond to that?”

“Let me just say this. Okay.”

“You talk about the children. Here is what I would say.”

And that’s when he completely flipped the conversation.

Instead of debating individual deportation cases, Vance brought the discussion back to what he sees as the real humanitarian disaster that occurred under the previous administration.

VANCE: “Do we know that during the last administration we had TENS of THOUSANDS of children who were sex trafficked by the cartels, who were brought into our country in profoundly dangerous and predatory conditions…”

Subscribe now

It was a total indictment. Hostin immediately tried to redirect the conversation.

HOSTIN: “Let’s talk about this administration!”

But Vance wasn’t letting go of the point.

His argument was simple — if the border isn’t enforced, criminal organizations benefit, and vulnerable people pay the price.

VANCE: “Unless you enforce the border, you invite that kind of conduct.”

“You think it’s inhumane based on the reporting of one person with a political bias.”

NAVARRO: “It’s not one person!”

VANCE: “What I’m telling you is that it’s inhumane to allow cartels to sex traffic people across our border.”

For a moment, the back-and-forth stopped.

Then something happened that probably wasn’t in the producers’ script.

Ana Navarro, one of Trump’s most consistent critics on television, acknowledged the one thing that even many opponents of the administration have quietly admitted over the past several months.

NAVARRO: “And you guys have done a great job closing the border.”

Just like that, the entire conversation shifted.

After all of the arguments, interruptions, and accusations, one of the panel’s strongest anti-Trump voices ended up conceding the administration’s biggest immigration achievement.

Vance couldn’t resist having a little fun with it.

VANCE: “I appreciate that! We’re going to get you back Ana.”

It was a classic Vance moment.

He stayed calm while the panel came at him from every direction, redirected the conversation back to the issues he wanted to discuss, and ultimately walked away with something few Republicans get on The View — a public admission from Ana Navarro that the administration’s border policies are working.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

Last night was one of those rare moments where you knew you were watching something people would be talking about for years.

The closest comparison that comes to mind is when President Trump returned …

Read more

Spencer Pratt may be best known for reality television, but if you watched his appearance on Bill Maher’s Club Random podcast this morning, you saw something very different.

What started as a conversa…

Read more

It’s not every day the Vice President of the United States walks into the White House briefing room and takes over the podium himself, but that’s exactly what happened today.

With Karoline Leavitt out…

Read more

Last night, CNN’s Erin Burnett — who has spent years attacking President Trump from behind the anchor desk — clearly thought she had the perfect setup when she brought up Trump’s comments about Venezuela potentially becoming the “51st state.”

Twice, she tried to steer Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado into attacking Trump over the comments in just a matter of minutes.

Twice, Machado completely shut down the trap and turned the conversation back toward Venezuela’s alliance with the United States, defeating communism, and the broader fight for democracy in South America.

Burnett opened with a long-winded setup about Trump’s comments, framing them as something Machado should supposedly find offensive or alarming.

BURNETT: “But Trump keeps talking about Venezuela as the 51st state. I just mentioned that social media post that he posted with the 51st state and the map of Venezuela.”

“He also talked about this in detail earlier this week to a Fox News reporter who was really a bit taken aback by it.”

“How do you even respond to that?”

Machado didn’t hesitate at all.

Instead of taking the bait into ridiculing President Trump, she leaned the other direction entirely and spoke positively about both Venezuela and the relationship she believes the country could have with the United States in the future.

MACHADO: “Well, I know President Trump really likes Venezuela and for good reasons. It is a beautiful country. But most of all of wonderful people.”

“But I’m sure he’s going to love it even better when we have a country that is free, prosperous, and democratic, and turns into the strongest ally in the Americas…”

“And look, Erin, from every perspective for the American people and for the Venezuelan people, a transition to democracy is a win-win solution…”

You could almost feel the interview slipping away from Burnett at that point.

Most CNN interviews built around Trump follow a pretty predictable script, especially when a foreign leader or opposition figure is involved.

The expectation is usually that the guest will validate the framing, condemn Trump, and help generate the headline the network wants.

But Machado clearly wasn’t interested in playing that role.

A few moments later, Burnett tried again anyway, this time getting even more direct and repeating Trump’s comments almost word-for-word in an effort to force Machado into rejecting them publicly.

The vitriol directed at the president by Burnett was palpable. She could hardly get the words out as she stuttered, ‘But Trump!’

BURNETT: “But when…when…when trump said to the Fox News reporter; ‘I’m very serious about this. So you can talk about this. I’m serious about beginning a process to make Venezuela the 51st state.’”

“You do not take him seriously?”

Once again, Machado refused to take the bait.

Instead of criticizing Trump, she told Burnett that the president’s overture about making Venezuela the 51st state is actually a direct message sent to the Chavismo regime that the United States is in charge.

MACHADO: “Well, I think he’s sending a message to many people and certainly to the regime.”

“I mean, we, the Venezuelan people value, appreciate, share the values of the American people.”

Machado then pivoted back to the bigger geopolitical picture and started talking about the collapse of communist influence across Latin America if Venezuela were freed from the current regime.

“We are decisive to be a strong ally…and in terms of legacy, imagine what this will mean for the for the U.S. government and for your country, Erin, for the first time, we will have, once we move towards democracy and Venezuela is free, Cuba will follow, Nicaragua will follow.”

“We will have for the first time in the history of this continent, the Americans, free of communism and dictatorship.”

“This is huge!”

At that point, the interview was basically cooked.

Burnett had gone fishing for an anti-Trump soundbite twice and came up empty both times.

Machado never gave CNN the outrage moment they were clearly hoping for. Instead, she turned the entire discussion into a message about freedom, anti-communism, and alliance with the United States.

The look on Burnett’s face said everything.

She realized pretty quickly that Machado was not going to play along with the narrative she was trying to build, and hastily ended the interview.

However, it was far too late. Everyone had just witnessed a trouncing live on CNN.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

Have you ever heard a gentleman from Kentucky drop an F-bomb on cable news?

Well — you’re about to.

Last night on CNN, Scott Jennings completely lost his patience in a back-and-forth with 23-year-old …

Read more

White said the situation escalated quickly after, as armed officers rushed in triggered confusion in the room.

White said the atmosphere shifted suddenly as guests reacted to uncertainty about what was happening.

WHITE: “All the sudden it just started getting noisy.”

He recalled people moving quickly and security personnel responding.

“Tables getting flipped over, guys running in with guns.”

“And they were screaming; ‘Get down!’”

White said he did not immediately take cover and instead wanted to take in everything that was unfolding.

“I didn’t get down, it was f*cking awesome!”

“I literally took every minute of in and it was a pretty crazy, unique experience.”

He added that he watched it all unfold from close to where President Trump and other leaders were seated.

“We were sitting right in front of the table, right in front of where the president was.”

White described security personnel moving through the area searching for a possible threat. At the time, he said there was uncertainty about where the threat was coming from.

“Guys came in looking for shooters and they came towards our table!”

“I thought the shooter was over by us or something!”

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

A night that was supposed to be about free speech, press, and politics took a hard turn into something nobody in that room will forget.

On Saturday, what began as a routine White House Correspondents’…

Read more

Yesterday, Senator Ron Johnson went on Newsmax and laid out what he says he’s been uncovering behind the scenes on the COVID vaccine fallout — and it wasn’t some routine segment or recycled talking p…

Read more

You could feel where it was going within seconds.

Tapper tried to box her into a headline, framing Donald Trump’s comments about the Iranian regime as some kind of call for genocide.

Stefanik defended the president and completely dismantled Tapper’s “genocide” narrative.

Tapper pressed hard, trying to frame the remarks in the most extreme terms possible.

TAPPER: “Is calling for wiping out an entire civilization bad or good?”

Stefanik immediately rejected the premise outright.

STEFANIK: “Of course it’s bad! That is not what he is calling for. He wasn’t calling for genocide.”

Tapper doubled down, trying to pin her to the wording itself.

TAPPER: “You’re entire civilization will die?”

But Stefanik reframed it, arguing the comments were directed at a regime — not an entire group of people.

STEFANIK: “It was targeted toward the Iranian terrorist regime!”

When Tapper tried to move on with a dismissive “agree to disagree,” Stefanik didn’t let it slide. It was a smarmy move that Tapper constantly does with guests on his show, but this time it backfired.

She used the moment to call out the network itself for the continued attempts to dispel narratives that didn’t exist.

Stefanik then flipped the comparison back on Tapper, bringing up past controversies involving university leaders and their responses to calls for genocide.

“If you want to compare the president of the United States to the university presidents who failed to call for the condemnation of calling for the genocide of Jews, that’s on you, Jake.”

“The world saw how morally equivocating those university presidents were.”

“If you want to make that comparison, that’s on CNN.”

Tapper tried to steer it back to consistency in standards.

TAPPER: “I’m just asking you if you have the same standard for somebody…?”

But Stefanik closed the loop, making her position clear while pivoting back to policy outcomes of Trump’s harsh words for the regime.

STEFANIK: “Of course, genocide is bad across the board, Jake.”

“President Trump effectively brought the Iranians to the table.”

“He effectively delivered a ceasefire.”

“And he is going to effectively deliver peace to the Middle East to stop, frankly, the killing [from] the Iranian terrorist regime, which kills their own people and has created havoc across the Middle East.”

By the end of the segment, it was pretty obvious what had just played out.

Tapper was trying to guide the conversation into a very specific framing, a CNN narrative that would lock Trump’s comments into the harshest possible interpretation, thus, “a genocide.”

It had that familiar feel of a line of questioning where the destination is basically set before the answer is even given.

However, this time, Stefanik didn’t take it where he wanted it to go.

She caught the framing immediately, pushed back on the premise itself, and refused to let the exchange stay boxed into CNN’s narrative.

Instead of reacting inside it, she stepped outside of it — and started talking about what she said the words actually meant, not what they were being turned into.

And once that happened, the segment stopped going in Tapper’s direction entirely.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

Last night on Fox, Stephen Miller sat down with Brian Kilmeade and laid out what the administration says is the next phase of its immigration agenda and fraud crackdown.

If you’ve followed Trump’s imm…

Read more

It’s already being called an Easter miracle, and when the full story is finally told, it may go down as one of the most extraordinary rescue operations in modern U.S. military history.

For a lot of pe…

Read more

President Trump and his Cabinet convened for their first full Cabinet meeting since the launch of Operation Epic Fury, and the room was electric.

With the Iranian regime on its knees, the session off…

Read more

What he witnessed stuck with him, but not in a good way.

In an interview last night alongside Chris Cuomo, O’Reilly didn’t hold anything back.

O’Reilly painted a grim picture of a third-world dystopia filled with drugs, illegal aliens, violent crime and what he described as a total breakdown of order in parts of the city.

But more than that, he argued that Democrat leaders have known about it — and failed to act. He said they’re actively covering it up.

He didn’t ease into it.

O’REILLY: “You know who sells a narcotics down there in San Francisco and in Oakland?”

“Honduran drug gangs who are here illegally.”

O’Reilly pointed directly at Democrat sanctuary policies, arguing they’ve created an environment where criminal networks can operate without fear of federal enforcement. If anything they are emboldened.

“You know, protects them? The sanctuary laws of San Francisco and California.”

“They strut around armed to the teeth, okay, knowing that no one on the federal level can bother them, okay?”

“Because the state and the city won’t cooperate as almost every state does with joint task force, California won’t do it.”

According to O’Reilly, the consequences have been severe — particularly when it comes to the fentanyl crisis, which is killing and destroying the lives of countless Americans.

“So Honduran drug gangs in this country illegally are fueling a MASSIVE fentanyl crisis that has destroyed the city of San Francisco.”

Then he named names. Every one of them a Democrat elite who have allowed this violence to continue.

CUOMO: “Well, I think it’s a damning headline and that’s why San Francisco has been getting crushed and Newsom has such a big burden to try to make it as the Democratic nominee.”

O’Reilly then contrasted the city’s current condition with what he says it used to be — one of the most iconic and admired places in the country.

O’REILLY: “It was once the most beautiful city in the country. I used to love to go there.”

But the most disturbing images he brought back centered on what he described as the day-to-day reality now unfolding in certain neighborhoods of the city.

“Now, little children watch drug addicts inject themselves with needles in their neck as they walked to school.”

“Now, Hondurans here illegally cut off people’s hands with machetes if they don’t pay their drug debts.”

“This isn’t about narcotics. This is about massive violence.”

He ended by drawing a stunning juxtaposition between those hellish conditions and the lives of elite Democrat leaders he says are insulated from them — the same people who allowed the carnage to fester.

“Meanwhile, two miles away, Nancy Pelosi is living in an $8 million house guarded by security.”

“So she doesn’t have to experience any of it.”

That’s really the core of his argument.

Not just that things are bad — but that the people in charge don’t have to live with the consequences. They don’t care.

It’s a harsh portrayal, and not everyone will see it the same way.

But the picture O’Reilly is painting is obvious; a city that, in his eyes, has gone from iconic to unrecognizable — a decline he believes Democrats allowed to happen and continue to ignore to this day.

O’Reilly’s special; ‘The Decline and Fall of San Francisco’ will premiere tonight, Thursday March 26th at 9PM ET on NewsNation.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

The Early Vote Action founder has been at the forefront of the push to pass the SAVE America Act to secure American elections — and now he’s taking that fight directly to Washington with a simple but unmistakeable message:

During an appearance this morning on Fox News, Presler delivered a direct and personal appeal to Republican Senators, urging them to cancel their upcoming recess and stay in Washington to finish the job.

With Congress set to break from March 30th through April 10th, Presler framed the moment as a real test of leadership — arguing that the country doesn’t have the luxury of waiting, and neither do the American people.

PRESLER: “I have a very nice, peaceful but stern message to our Republican Senate.”

“I have a pitch for you.”

“The Senate is supposed to go on recess from March 30th until April 10th.”

What made the moment resonate wasn’t just the ask — it was how clearly he laid out the stakes. Presler wasn’t talking in generalities. He was calling for a visible show of unity and urgency from a party that — for now — holds power.

He pointed specifically to unfinished business, urging lawmakers to remain in session until key priorities are completed — including full funding for the Department of Homeland Security and passage of the SAVE America Act.

“Stay in Washington, D.C. until the Department of Homeland Security is fully funded and until the SAVE America Act is passed and signed into law by President Donald J. Trump.”

The reaction in the room was immediate.

[Cheers]

But Presler didn’t let the moment pass, he knew how powerful this message was.

He leaned into it, turning his message into a broader challenge about why Republicans were given the majority in the first place. Do not waste this moment, this is your chance.

“This is your opportunity to lead.”

[Audience erupts into U-S-A chants]

“This is your opportunity to show why we the American people gave you the majority and this is your chance — a defining moment in history.”

“So don’t let this squander.”

With all of the noise out there about voter ID, the DHS shutdown, the long lines at the airport, the media narratives — Presler’s message cut through all of it with a simple demand: stay, work, and deliver.

He spoke as the voice of the American people, directly to the establishment.

Whether lawmakers take that advice remains to be seen — but the moment itself landed, and it resonated with the majority of Americans who are sick and tired of the political games.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!