Commentary Culture Investigations

Donald Trump stated his case for finishing the fight against the Islamic Republic of Iran: it is the case for Americans and all others who share our preference for free societies. While the excesses, boasts, threats, and barstool style irritate listeners who expect a manner more solemn and steady from the American president, he made it with brevity and clarity: Iran’s aggressive, tyrannous regime must reform or be removed. Since the former is unlikely, the president was in effect saying the U.S. and its allies, such as they are, must succeed in effecting the latter.
The Islamic Republic, ruling Iran since 1979, is a horrible and monstrous regime that cannot be trusted and certainly must never have a nuclear arsenal. It was “right at the doorstep” of having such a capability. His argument rested on half a century of evidence of the Iranians’ intentions,  and his confidence in our military’s ability to thwart them.
Do you want to try to live with monsters armed with monstrous weapons?
Ensuring security is the fundamental role of any government. In this case, it is not difficult to see that the president of the U.S. chose prudence and decided to disarm a fanatical adversary, rather than seek an arms control treaty or offer a bribe. Past presidents tried that without effect.
The question is: do you want to try to live with monsters armed with monstrous weapons?
America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy, Mr. Trump might have said — had he John Quincy Adams’ gift for classical oratory. He has his own way of stating his position.
This sometimes leads to a sense of blustering incoherence, so time must be given to observe what the president does. Misunderstanding can also befall coherent and rhetorically faultless speakers like John Quincy Adams. Isolationists who quote Adams without reading him miss the theme of the speech that remains today as profound and practical a statement of American foreign policy as it was on July 4, 1821, when the great diplomat and future president explained that while we could not bring freedom to other nations, we could give them the gift of showing that it could be attained.
Adams believed and explained that we could not avoid involvement with the world. When attacked or challenged in our essential interests, such as the freedom of the seas, we should strike back, with diplomacy when possible, with arms when necessary. However, we should understand that our best foreign policy lies in adhering to our founding principles. They serve as a magnet and a model to other nations.
Democracy dies in mutism, but it can also suffer from cacophony.
Mr. Trump did not delve into the means and purposes of foreign policy because his purpose was to assure the American people that he knows what he is doing with regard to the immediate crisis with Iran, and his war policy is working. He is quite justified here, because there has been a great deal of noise from the chattering classes with the object of demonstrating that the administration’s policy is incoherent and reckless. Democracy dies in mutism, but it can also suffer from cacophony. If the opposition party and the media place bringing down the government rather than beating a regime that has vowed to destroy our nation, and indeed our civilization, it is unfortunate, but Mr. Trump’s job is to defend the U.S.A.
Thus, it was not the president’s purpose on this occasion to respond to the cliches and catch-phrases about days after and regime changes and nation building or rebuilding or anything else. Winning the war and restoring some order in the Gulf is the first order of business, just as, at a crime scene, the police are entrusted with stopping the malefactors, leaving for later questions of punishment or rehabilitation. Or even reconciliation and redemption.
Mr. Trump sees that it is futile and distracting to discuss an eventual rebuilding of Iran (politically and otherwise); for the moment, he is focused on the remnants of the ruling regime over there with the aim of demolishing it or crippling it to a point where it cannot threaten us.
Mental, moral transformation will follow, we hope. For 50 years, the Islamic Republic has made killing Americans a policy goal, directly or through proxies. It also ravaged an ancient Oriental civilization and made life miserable for its heirs, the people of Iran. Defending Americans and American interests from the Islamic Republic’s death cultists and theocratic tyrants is a way to help the people of Iran, and Adams would have approved, as he would have agreed it is up to them to seize the chance to reclaim their country and its culture, which includes the intellectual and spiritual riches of the Shiite religious branch of Islam.
Shiism considers itself the truest faith and intellectual system. All faiths have their fanatics, but neither Shiism nor any other religion forces its believers to be at war with other faiths and systems; it does so only when captured by hate-crazed lunatics, as the president might put it. Nor is a powerful faith bound to produce the totalitarian politics of the Islamic republic.
You can feel yours is the true faith without feeling obligated to impose it on others, unless you want to be at war all the time. But history teaches that this is easier said than done.
The head of the Catholic Church, Leo XIV, finds himself fortuitously in a position to pick up where Mr. Trump left off and address this question. He will be in Africa for a few weeks this month, bringing joy and courage to the faithful in sub-Saharan countries, among the fastest growing in the world for both Catholicism and nonconforming Christian sects.
However, his first stop is Algeria, where he will meet with government and religious leaders to discuss interfaith dialogue. Without denying that the Church engaged in interfaith dialogue in centuries past by means of crusades and inquisitions and wars of religion, he could point out that that was then and now is now, and two-way streets as well as fences make better neighbors.
Algeria is a Sunni Muslim country where Shiism is suspect, and Catholicism is regulated by a Ministry of Cults that also sends out talking points to the state-regulated mosques. Protestantism survives in catacombs, and Judaism (while we are on the subject of religion) is all but eradicated. In short, there is little official tolerance for heretics or unbelievers, though the ordinary Algerian is more often than not quite tolerant and welcoming.
The pope’s Algeria schedule includes a visit to Hippo, now Annaba, the home of Augustine (Leo XIV belongs to the order bearing the saint’s name), and it is not beyond credible that the meetings on interfaith dialogue were added by the hosts for PR, seeing as how they blame many of their problems not on their own system of government but on Western hostility and prefer to play the aggressed victim.
Now it is true the French colonial system (1830-1962) began with a brutal conquest and remained to the end unjust and oppressive, with deception and discrimination and humiliation the lot of the indigenous Muslim, Arabic, Berber, and Jewish communities, though there were arrangements, exceptions, and other forms of live-and-let-live.
Never enough, of course, and never with sufficient tact and sincerity, and the end was appalling, a seven-year war of terror, inter-communal and even intra-communal massacres that reached into France and left traumas and scars that are still being played out in the politics of both countries.
Not the least consequence of the French colonial experience and the independence war that ended it was that it wrecked what had been a land of surprisingly successful cohabitation among peoples of different backgrounds during the centuries that followed the eight century Arab conquest. The victorious “liberation” produced a state that felt it had to impose rigid conformity in religion and everything else to maintain national unity. Yet experience shows that a state that must resort to tyrannical repression to maintain its unity is on its way to failure. The American founders knew this; it is why they saw freedom of religion as essential to a durable constitutional order.
France recovered; Algeria took off economically (not without guilt-laden but also not disinterested French help, notably with regard to the need for energy that could be extracted in the Sahara). Politically, however, the “revolution” in Algeria turned out to be a grim example of single-party, police-state, uniform-thinking, no-opposition — especially from the Berbers who did not see why “Arab” should be the new nation’s only identity, nor Islam its only religion.
Many Berbers were and are Christian; in certain regions, notably the mountainous Kabylie north of Algiers, they are the majority (overall, perhaps a majority all across North Africa is in some form or another of Berber ancestry). The Algiers regime alternately makes it easier to repress dissent by outlawing separatist platforms (which Kabyle-based political and communal organizations have — peacefully — espoused), which gives them an additional legal weapon against Christians.
Without getting tangled up in tribal and ethnic grudges — though as a Chicagoan, Robert Cardinal Prevost could tell the Algerians some interesting stories in this area — the bishop of Rome could point out, and perhaps ought to, with all his tact and generosity, that freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, in short, freedom, never hurt a country or a society, except maybe America’s. So, my infidel brothers (hahah, just kidding, Mr Tyrrell and I are from Chicago too), consider what a huge boost to world peace you will make by setting an example! Why, even those crazies in Iran — whom you unwisely supported unconditionally as you did Hamas against Israel, which frankly was not very nice considering all the Jews gave your country in everything from medicine to music to translations of the Koran and much else, until you pretty much forced them out — even those boys might pay attention.
And you know, interfaith hooha, peace at last between Islam and Christendom, Judeo-Christendom, brother! (May I call you brother?) Why that might win you a Nobel prize — the American guy might even be happy to share. And even if it falls short, it is worth the old college try on Leo’s part. In the context of the parlous state of international affairs these days, it could even be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
READ MORE from Roger Kaplan:
The Australian Open and the Politics of Words
The Berber War Cry for Freedom
Rolling Them Up in Iraq

Welcome to the holiest week of the year.
Holy Week begins with Palm Sunday. In the Roman Catholic Church, as well as some others, the Palm Sunday reading is the Passion narrative. This year, it’s Matthew’s Gospel, sections 26:14-27:66. I’m always shaken by these passages. Who wouldn’t be? They chronicle Jesus’ journey to death on the cross, beginning with Judas’ betrayal, selling out his Savior for thirty pieces of silver. It will not be the first time in history that a righteous person is condemned by a lesser for sheer greed, power, or whatever motivation. When the injustice happens, the victim should always bear in mind that it also happened to none other than the Son of God. (RELATED: The Mysterious Solitude of Christ in His Passion and Death on the Cross)
The pivotal moment of Judas’s betrayal is dramatic and dark, literally. Judas takes the morsel from Jesus at the Last Supper and — as John’s Gospel puts it — “Satan entered him … and he left at once. And it was night.”
He scurried into the darkness, away from the Light, to do his dirty deed. But ultimately, there’s no rejoicing for Judas, no happy ending. There never is for those who instead serve the Son of Darkness. After receiving his payment, a despondent Judas flees and hangs himself. Satan really had entered him. So much so that Judas couldn’t conceive of Christ’s ocean of mercy. Rather than following the Prince of Peace, he took the way of the Prince of Darkness.
Judas’s betrayal is one of many that unravel in the Passion narrative. Jesus is betrayed repeatedly. The very people who watched him perform miracles and shouted hosannas just days before during his triumphant entrance into Jerusalem now demand, “Crucify him!” When Roman Governor Pontius Pilate offers them a choice between the man of miracles and a murderer, they demand the latter.
“Give us Barabbas!” they insist.
“He deserves to die!” shouts the mob.
From Judas to the mob, from high priests Caiaphas and Annas, they demand death for the Author of Life.
This sordid scene plays out all the way to Calvary. It never ceases to sadden and sicken. Christians who today lament their own sorrows, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” should ponder their namesake’s Via Crucis. They should stop and stare at the Crucified One. Their own Savior was treated badly. Terribly. Egregiously. Oh, and he did tell them (lest they forget) that if they wanted to follow Him, they needed to pick up their cross, too.
Every follower of Christ must pick up the cross.
Reading the Passion narrative every Holy Week reminds us. So do good film representations. I would recommend several, including the 1977 all-star cast TV series Jesus of Nazareth by Franco Zeffirelli, the 2016 film Risen, the 1951 epic Quo Vadis, and the best of all, Mel Gibson’s stunning The Passion of the Christ.
I also strongly recommend the insights and images of a woman who inspired many scenes in Gibson’s masterpiece, as well as Zeffirelli’s work: Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824). The incredible German mystic and stigmatist is officially recognized by the Catholic Church as a blessed. And Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich is also considered one of the greatest visionaries in the history of the Church.
Let me be clear to believers and non-believers, and to Catholics and Protestants alike, that Emmerich’s visions fall in the category of what her Church categorizes as private revelation. They do not rise to the authority of sacred Scripture. Readers should deal with them with caution. We cannot accord them the same weight as Holy Scripture, though they are faithful to the Bible, just as viewers must do with popular modern works like The Chosen series.
Nonetheless, Emmerich’s visions, published in her The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, were so detailed, so extraordinary, that many read them each Holy Week for an added inspiration as to what transpired 2,000 years ago. Readers are spellbound by details that the Scriptures don’t reveal but which we can easily imagine, such as Emmerich’s description of the piercing of the side of Jesus by the Roman soldier, the terrified reaction to the consuming darkness and the earthquake at the time of Christ’s expiration, and the shocking apparitions of the dead rising from their tombs in Jerusalem. One cannot help but nod and say, “Surely, yes, I can picture it happening this way.”
Backing up to the start of this article, to Jesus’s path from the Last Supper to Calvary, one is stirred by Emmerich’s vivid descriptions of Gethsemane, Jesus’s awful interrogation by Annas and Caiaphas, Peter’s denials, Claudia’s dreams, the Savior being flogged and crowned and crucified between the two thieves, and more. Here is but one example:
“Shall I crucify your king?” asked Pilate. “We have no king but Caesar!” responded the high priests and the crowd. Emmerich’s account conforms to the New Testament account, but she added details like these, which surely seem conceivable: “I looked up again and saw the cruel [mob] almost devouring their victim with their eyes, the [Roman] soldiers standing coldly by, and multitudes of horrible demons passing to and fro and mixing in the crowd.” The demons egged on the bystanders, helping to whip the mob into its frenzy. As Emmerich watched this spectacle she was “overcome” by the “ferocious joy of the executioners,” the “cowardice and duplicity of this despicable being [Pontius Pilate],” the “triumphant countenances of the High Priests,” the  “cunning and duplicity” and “infernal joy” of Annas, the “agonizing grief” of the Blessed Mother, and of course, the cruel injustice inflicted upon the sinless One stoically bearing the sins of them all.
Alas, circling back to Judas Iscariot, she described his unbearable torment after betraying his Savior. She saw him running frantically about the countryside, pursued “by many devils” tormenting him as he succumbed to “black despair” and hung himself. Mel Gibson captures this dramatically in The Passion.
We all have our Bibles, but they don’t contain photos. They offer limited details. Fuller images are left to our imaginations, as well as to filmmakers or even the rare mystic like Anne Catherine Emmerich. Many of these vivid accounts cannot help but put one closer to the suffering Christ. They help us more deeply appreciate what our Savior went through in his sacrifice for us on his knees and on the cross.
And that’s where every follower of Christ should be every Holy Week.
READ MORE from Paul Kengor:
Pope Leo vs. President Trump
Pope Leo on Peace, War, and Conscience
Pope Leo: Rely on Your Brain Rather Than AI

We’re diving right in. I have a word limit on the 5QT this week. It’s self-imposed, because I am attempting to enforce discipline after continuous hazing by our readers over the “Quick” part of the 5QT.
Accordingly…
1. The Bondi Bounce
It’s being styled as a “move to the private sector,” and President Trump was effusive in his praise for Pam Bondi as his attorney general, but she’s nevertheless getting packed off. Todd Blanche, Bondi’s deputy AG, is taking over.
Per Bondi…

Over the next month I will be working tirelessly to transition the office of Attorney General to the amazing Todd Blanche before moving to an important private sector role I am thrilled about, and where I will continue fighting for President Trump and this Administration.
Leading President Trump’s historic and highly successful efforts to make America safer and more secure has been the honor of a lifetime, and easily the most consequential first year of the Department of Justice in American history.
Since February 2025, we have secured the lowest murder rate in 125 years, secured first-ever terrorism convictions against members of Antifa, shattered domestic and transnational gangs across the country, taken custody of more than 90 key cartel figures, and won 24 favorable rulings at the Supreme Court.
I remain eternally grateful for the trust that President Trump placed in me to Make America Safe Again.
All of which is fine, and it certainly signals that the Justice Department was in better hands with Bondi than it was under the previous administration.
But Trump supporters fell out of love with Bondi pretty early for the lack of backlash against Democrat abuses. There haven’t been cases brought against people like Jake Sullivan and John Brennan over the Trump-Russia scam and other fairly egregious abuses of power and law, and the DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files — something which is an intensely Democratic scandal, somehow allowed it to be weaponized against Trump. (RELATED: ‘Accountability’ for RussiaGate? Don’t Bet on It)
That’s a firing offense in its own right. But then, on Thursday, as the news of her ouster broke out, there was this…

NEW: Pam Bondi was fired, in part, because President Trump believed she had tipped off Eric Swalwell, according to the Daily Mail.
Trump reportedly believes Bondi had tipped off Swalwell about the FBI’s effort to share investigative documents about his relationship with an… pic.twitter.com/ULpH0Lm8Y6
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 2, 2026

Sure hope that isn’t true. If it is, there can be no surprise about Bondi’s ouster.
How on earth could anybody be friendly with Eric Swalwell?
2. Was It Act Blue?
I don’t think Bondi’s end has anything to do with the fact that nobody from Act Blue has been indicted for what’s clear and obvious — that the Democrats’ fundraising platform has been a means of laundering foreign money into American political campaigns. (RELATED: ActBlue Probes May Shut Down DNC Money Laundry)
But it remains a fact that we’ve not seen indictments, and it’s more and more obvious what’s been going on — though those of us observing this have been screaming about it for years.
Initially, what was obvious was that people who supposedly donated to Act Blue were not actually donating to Act Blue. James O’Keefe did a pretty thorough job of illuminating that a couple of years ago.

At my site, The Hayride, we did just a shallow dive into Act Blue donations from zip codes in Louisiana, where it would be implausible to see lots of money being spent on political campaigns, and we were pretty blown away by how brazen the fraud was. People donating amounts like $7.06 through ActBlue, for example, or somebody living in a row house in the slums making 100 donations totaling more than $18,000 in the space of a little more than a year?
Clearly, those were straw donors.
And those strange amounts? The likely explanation is that they represent the exchange value of foreign currencies.
This plot has thickened, thanks to the honest journalism of… the New York Times? What?

🚨Act Blue reportedly LIED to Congress about vetting foreign donations.
Per the New York Times:
Foreign donors “who paid through third-party apps like Apple Pay, PayPal or Venmo were not asked for passport information.”
As the NYT notes:
“Federal election law prohibits… pic.twitter.com/ScIK6cPf6H
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) April 2, 2026

When even the New York Times is reporting on this, we’re long overdue for criminal charges. Bondi’s DOJ should have moved faster.
3. Can We Talk About the Stupidity of Europe?
Per yesterday’s column and the clear indications that the Trump administration is going to dissolve — either de facto or de jure — our entanglement with NATO, the opinions are all over the place. Mostly centered around Trump and his behavior. (READ MORE: Trump Delivers Europe’s Much-Needed Wake-Up Call)
But what of the Europeans? They’re active players in this drama as well, you know. Should they not go in for an examination?
After all, regardless of your opinion of Trump, the fact remains that he’s the American president, and he’s been quite consistent in his opinion on NATO and its current value. It was clear to anyone with a functional tactical or strategic mind that keeping Trump happy in the alliance would require more than in the case of Joe Biden.
And if not, then the Munich Security Conference speeches by JD Vance last year and Marco Rubio this year were fairly unmistakable expressions of American concern. (RELATED: Munich and the Fate of the West)
And now we’re seeing U.S. forces being denied basing and flyover rights as part of an effort to subdue a country that has built missiles capable of hitting more or less every major city in Europe and has spent half a century promoting terrorism, with Europe as one of their main bloody playgrounds. (RELATED: What’s Wrong With Spain? It’s Pedro Sánchez.)
Let’s just say that the current class of European leaders is guilty of poor assumptions.
For example, it wasn’t a very good assumption that you could take millions of unassimilable Muslim migrants into your white Christian ethno-states, when your ancestors’ experience with Muslims was universally negative, and not have existential troubles as a result.
It also wasn’t a very good assumption that you could declare a virtue in denying yourself the production of domestic energy — coal, natural gas, and oil, which many or most of these countries would have access to if they allowed themselves to explore and produce it — and instead depend on windmills and solar panels. In Germany’s case, they’ve even denied themselves the use of nuclear power for zero discernible reason (panic following the Fukushima incident was the given justification, though there was no German nuclear plant in anything like the Fukushima threat scenario). (RELATED: Trump the Wolf Topples von der Leyen From Her Pony — Saint Paul Style)
Not only that, we can say it was a pretty poor assumption that dependence on Russian natural gas was a good plan while screeching about how evil Vladimir Putin is. Back in 2018, Trump told them they were making a mistake, and the Germans laughed at him.
They maybe shouldn’t have assumed Trump was an idiot when he’s been a lot more right than wrong on geopolitical issues — or, if you refuse to accept that, you at least have to concede Trump has been more correct than Messrs. Starmer, Sanchez, and Macron.
Assuming that the post-war trade protectionism, calcified within the EU bureaucratic state, that Europe has cloaked itself in, would never result in American reaction, probably was a mistake.
And so was the assumption that they could forever offload their national defense to the U.S. without someday being asked to pay the check.
And when the check did come, it turned out that it’s base use and flyover rights, and an invitation to participate in opening the Strait of Hormuz so that oil for Europe (some 6 percent of the Euros’ already-tight oil consumption comes through the Strait of Hormuz, compared to a negligible amount headed here) might flow out of the Persian Gulf. That’s fairly cheap, at the end of the day, particularly when it comes a full generation after the request for a few thousand troops to help in Iraq and Afghanistan. (RELATED: Five Quick Things: Hormuz)
As yesterday’s column noted, the real truth behind Europe’s indignation at being asked by Trump to help reopen Hormuz is that the Euros aren’t capable of doing that. Our NATO allies are military invalids at this point — which Trump is exposing.
And yet the argument for keeping NATO is… nostalgia? I give you the fossilized John Kasich…

When this administration dismisses @NATO, it forgets what NATO has meant for America: collective security, shared values, and decades of peace. You don’t walk away because allies disagree. You strengthen it and preserve it. pic.twitter.com/LrIJipm9mA
— John Kasich (@JohnKasich) April 1, 2026

When Spain builds submarines too heavy to surface, Spanish politicians had better curry much favor with American presidents, because Spain is a supplicant to America.
And they still are. They just aren’t very good at it. One might keep this in mind going forward.
4. We’ll Find Out If It’s Our Supreme Court, or China’s
The issue deserves a full column, several of which you can find elsewhere at The American Spectator, but one of the key questions Solicitor General John Sauer was asked by the Supreme Court during oral arguments on the birthright citizenship case heard at the Court on Wednesday was “What’s changed?”
PJ Media’s Tim O’Brien had a good post on that topic…
During the course of the Court’s questioning of Sauer, the exchange bounced around, focusing on things like what the Constitution’s framers intended on some issues, what the authors of the 14th Amendment were thinking in 1868, what lawmakers were thinking in 1940 and 1952, and what previous Supreme Court justices were thinking in earlier landmark cases.
Keep in mind, Sauer and the Trump administration had taken on the daunting task of trying to dramatically redefine the common interpretation of birthright citizenship as addressed in the 14th Amendment, in the Citizenship Clause. That clause says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
In other words, if you’re born on U.S. soil, by accident or intent (with very few exceptions), you are an American citizen.
Sauer’s case keyed in on what is meant by “the jurisdiction thereof.” As I followed the court’s questioning, I did notice a pattern that may determine the case’s outcome. Justice after justice seemed to want to know what has changed so much that it requires them to pretty much turn the country’s immigration law and policy on its head.
They seemed to be telling Sauer, “If I’m going to change the common interpretation of the Constitution, tell me what I need to tell everyone who is impacted by this. Why do this, and why now?”
Sauer raised the issue of Chinese birth tourism, which has now become a major, major thing — there are hundreds if not thousands of companies in China (and by “companies” in that country, we mean “fronts for the Chinese Communist Party”) which are facilitating travel by Chinese women to the United States for the purpose of giving birth here and thereby conferring American citizenship on their Chinese children.
You can let that one marinate in your head a while and imagine the parade of horribles this could engender.
Or you can just listen to Johnathan Turley, who was on Laura Ingraham talking about this Wednesday…

“Only a moronic nation would allow birth tourism to flourish.”@JonathanTurley: the policy is “perfectly insane” — and even liberal justices suddenly rediscovered “original intent” when it suits them.
This isn’t settled law. It’s a debate we’ve avoided for decades. pic.twitter.com/ZhbqSQD0q4
— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) April 1, 2026

Chief Justice John Roberts acted unimpressed by Sauer’s presentation of the utter absurdity of the current stupid interpretation of the 14th Amendment — allowing rival/enemy nations to create U.S. citizenship rights for their people, and all of the privileges those entail. Roberts’s quote was “It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”
Which is not encouraging.
John Roberts was happy to interpret the Obamacare individual mandate as a tax when it was specifically denied as a tax during the legislative debate, which is a pretty good indication he’s willing to be malleable in his constitutional interpretations in the right circumstances, and yet on this, he wants to play cigar-store Indian.
That said, if the Supreme Court comes back in June with a pro-China ruling on birthright citizenship, the GOP has an absolutely killer issue for the midterms. You simply pass — or pass it in the House and let the Democrats filibuster it in the Senate amid a huge hue and cry — a federal law which creates a statutory interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s jurisdiction clause in the way the drafters of the amendment did. Which is to say that citizenship is only conferred upon the children of legal immigrants who are actively trying to become Americans. Not diplomats, not tourists, and not illegal aliens.
Let Chuck Schumer filibuster that and then hang those Chinese birth tourists around his neck and that of every Democrat running for federal office this fall. It’ll be fun.
5. The Racist, Anti-Racist Angry Lesbian (or At Least Angry Lesbian-Adjacent) Fans of the National Women’s Soccer League (Who Turn Out Not To Be Very Good For Free Enterprise)
You likely haven’t heard this story. And it’s going to drive you up the wall. We’re ending this 5QT with a flourish.

A black Kansas City businessman has been forced to scrap his plans to open a new nightclub after a local football fan club comprised mainly of liberal white women complained that the name was “racist.”
Casio McCombs said this week he was “deeply disappointed” that his plans to open a club named Sundown HiFi were halted due to outcry from KC Blue Crew, a supporters club for women’s soccer team KC Current.
The “sundown” name was deemed by the group to be a reference to a “sundown town,” a 19th Century term for all-white communities that would practice racial segregation and terrorize any black people unfortunate enough to find themselves on its streets after dark.
The nightclub was set to be opened on a development site named Current Landing located next to the CPKC Stadium, leading the women’s group to issue a statement arguing the ‘sundown’ name would tarnish the sports area.
“In the year 2026, the history of America and its African American population is not unknown. The use of the name ‘Sundown’ for a dance club is not only racist, but incredibly insensitive to the history of the area in which this team resides,” the club said.
“Missouri has had a particularly violent history of sundown towns so it is especially disturbing for a team located in Missouri to choose to name a night club establishment for people to gather at on its grounds, after dark, Sundown Lounge.”
McCombs said the pressure from the group forced him to drop his plans to open the bar, saying his dream was “reduced, misinterpreted and ultimately stripped away — largely by voices outside of the community it was meant to represent.”
“What kind of creativity are we actually willing to support?” he questioned. “And who do we allow to shape it?”

So who are these do-gooder fascists? Well…

I don’t think I need to say more. (RELATED: Feminism, the Nose-Ring Theory, and Our Potential Extinction)
Have a great weekend. And prayers for the crew of Artemis II — may they succeed in their mission and come home without a scratch!
READ MORE from Scott McKay:
Trump Delivers Europe’s Much-Needed Wake-Up Call
We Really Can Get Rid of the United Nations Now
Democrats Won’t Win the Midterms

The Elitist Media’s evening newscasts have shown that they have a hard time reporting on counteragenda items that expose blue states to accusations of incompetence or malfeasance. News related to public assistance fraud is especially rare among the nightlies, as is demonstrated by the latest news out of California.

Watch as the CBS Evening News is the sole evening newscast to report on the massive early morning raid carried out by the FBI in Covina, California: 

WATCH: CBS Evening News is the only network evening newscast to report on the early morning FBI raid in California, after the discovery of massive hospice fraud.
TONY DOKOUPIL: CBS News is first to report the arrest today of a married couple in Southern California accused of… pic.twitter.com/hSAWuv14Zx
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 3, 2026

CBS EVENING NEWS

4/2/25

6:42 PM

TONY DOKOUPIL: CBS News is first to report the arrest today of a married couple in Southern California accused of ripping off Medicare for nearly $7.5 million through a series of fraudulent hospice claims. Over 700 hospices in Los Angeles County alone have red flags for fraud, according to our investigative team. In this particular case, the flags included a five year survival rate of 97%, high for what is supposed to be end of life care. The FBI says additional arrests are expected.

To their credit, CBS has been working on the fraud story for quite some time. But this report is quite skinny for something that their peers aren’t even going to bother to carry. Additional details, per the California Post:

The home of a husband and wife who own a Southern California hospice accused of committing $7 million in fraud was raided by FBI agents in conjunction with Health and Human Services early Thursday morning.

The raid is one of several that took place as part of a massive federal effort to address widespread fraud in the state in coordination with Vice President JD Vance’s Fraud Taskforce — and the California Post was there.

In dramatic fashion, the couple, Amelou Gill and Gladwin Gill, who operate St. Francis Palliative Care in Anaheim, were arrested at their home by an FBI SWAT team as authorities sawed through the metal front gates of their property and called with loudspeakers for them to come out.

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, was on the scene as well and said the couple created a hospice in their daughter’s name and bilked millions of dollars from taxpayers.

You would think that having the head of CMS present at the raid might be an indicator of newsworthiness and seriousness. But no. And, of course, the CBS item made no mention of the raid’s relation to the anti-fraud effort spearheaded by Vice President JD Vance. 

All of this notwithstanding, CBS’s 32 seconds on the raid are 32 seconds more than ABC and NBC combined. The Elitist Media’s insistence on pretending that government assistance fraud doesn’t exist is but one of many reasons why the American People have lost trust in the media.

 

The duties have been a boon to lawyers and lobbyists, and no one else.

Easter is a revolutionary act.
The post Victory Over Death appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Blaming Jews, missing Jesus.
The post “Anti-Zionism” vs. the Resurrection appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

God had a plan that was foreshadowed in the Passover meal.
The post What is ‘Good’ About Good Friday appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

On “International Fact Checking Day,” we discuss how PolitiFact can’t find any Democrats saying false things with Matthew Hoy, author of the new book Fact-Checking Frauds: How Fact-Checkers Distract, Deceive, and Distort Our Politics. What tactics do they use? There’s obvious selection bias — in targets, in fact claims, and in expert testimony.

Managing Editor Curtis Houck joined the show to discuss how “fact checkers” are journalists and it shouldn’t be seen as hostile to journalism or facts to criticize them and their tactics. Hoy worked for 15 years as a newspaper journalist, so he knows how the process works. What we’ve seen is liberal journalists using “fact checking” as another way of undermining conservatives and Republicans in their appeal to voters. 

When PolitiFact couldn’t find a single statement made by the Democrats anywhere that they would feel need to be described as “Mostly False” or in stronger terms, it suggests favoritism. It’s one thing to believe that Donald Trump is uniquely troubling in his untruths and exaggerations. It’s another to believe it’s disreputable “false balance” to call out any falsehoods among Trump’s opponents. 

We’ve seen signs of decline among the “fact checkers.” The Washington Post didn’t replace their fact chieftain Glenn Kessler when he took a buyout. But their bias was glaringly obvious when Kessler compiled a database of more than 30,000 “false or misleading” statements from Trump, and then canceled any presidential database when Biden was elected. 

CNN’s Daniel Dale makes no attempt to avoid the impression that he’s only been hired to fact-check Trump, and pretty much nothing else. That’s certainly true when he appears on television for CNN. Snopes.com has a problem obsessing over satire, as if making jokes is the worst kind of misinformation. 

Overall, these “fact checkers” have remarkable blind spots — “Jim Crow 2.0” is considered fair comment about the Republicans. Calling Trump a “fascist” or a “dictator” is acceptable discourse, but if you call a Democrat a “socialist,” that can be tagged as “Pants On Fire.” Republicans can never claim the Democrats support abortion up until birth — no restrictions are desirable — but instead of proving their claim false (it’s not), they claim that late-term abortions are “rare,” as if that’s a factual argument. 

Enjoy the show below, or wherever you consumer your podcasts. 

Taking Easter seriously – and celebrating freedoms.
The post Hope For the Dead appeared first on Frontpage Mag.