Witness Southwest Key Programs: As part of the migrant money machine, it pulled in around a brain-busting $3 billion in taxpayer funds between fiscal 2021 and 2024.
The group is the largest housing provider for unaccompanied migrant kids — and clearly rotten to the core.
The Biden Justice Department sued it in July, over accusations of “severe” and “pervasive” rape and abuse of the kids in the group’s care between 2015 and 2023 — and a congressional probe found evidence suggesting SKP even turned kids over to traffickers.
But that didn’t stop the creeps in charge from padding their salaries!
As underlings were allegedly busy molesting the kids they’d been charged with caring for, CEO Anselmo Villareal’s pay soared from about $500,000 (already waaaaaay too much) in fiscal 2021 to almost $1.2 million in fiscal 2023.
Meanwhile, chief of staff Christina Cantu’s pay jumped about 280%, from $86,300to $326,228.
This was more reason for Dems to keep the border open: If it wasn’t, these big bucks would stop flowing to their partisans.(SKP’s top lobbyist and a cadre of other officials were, of course, handing over some of the money they swindled from Joe Taxpayer to Dem campaigns.)
Power Forward Communities was set up to push ahead another Dem policy insanity — i.e., forcing a “green energy transition” by making everyone use crappy “energy efficient” appliances and rewire their homes.
It did this in some cases by reportedly buying new stoves and other appliances, which sure sounds an awful lot like “goodies-for-votes” to us.
Especially since this outfit was so unqualified, it reportedly was forced to undergo training on how to set up a budget as part of the grant.
So remember, kids.
For all lefty Dems’ screeching about “migrant justice” and “sustainable energy” and the like, they’re less about doing good than making good.
President Donald Trump, who literally came within one inch of his life dodging a sniper’s bullet, and Elon Musk, who now faces serious death threats for working to save the country from bankruptcy over wasteful government spending, don’t take on these voluntary risks for money or fame.
They already have more than plenty of both.
Their only apparent motivation is a shared passion to put the present and future well-being of the nation above self-interests.
The costs for each of them have been enormous.
The previous administration, and the one before being elected the first time, unrelentingly weaponized the U.S. justice system against candidate and subsequent president Trump, endlessly attempting to bankrupt, criminalize, and imprison him over transparently groundless accusations that fortunately backfired with a majority of voters.
Anti-Musk activists are firebombing Tesla sales facilities, vehicles, and charging stations.
These represent the irrational reactions over DOGE’s investigations and exposures of widespread waste and fraud.
The probes have led to federal agency program terminations and layoffs contributing to corporate stock value losses.
Far worse, both MAGA President Trump and mega billionaire Musk face daily threats that few of us would accept — for any amount of money.
Additionally, on top of that July 2024 assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and another sniper plot against his life by a gunman arrested outside his West Palm Beach, Florida Trump International Golf Club, just nine weeks later, our nation’s 47th commander in chief has reportedly been targeted by Iran, in presumed retaliation for his previous administration’s Jan. 2020 killing of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Major General Qassem Soleimani.
Tesla CEO and lead DOGE administrator Elon Musk commented during a March “The Joe Rogan Experience” (YouTube/Spotify) interview: “I actually have to be careful that I don’t push too hard on the corruption stuff because it’s going to get me killed.
“I was actually thinking about it on the plane while flying over here,” [for Rogan’s podcast]: “I mean this is really going to get me assassinated.
“It’s like I’m not lengthening my lifespan by explaining this stuff, say the least. I mean I’m supposed to go back to D.C.
“How am I going to survive? Those fu**ers are going to kill me for sure.”
Musk added, “So in fact I do think like, it’s like actually I’ve got to be careful I don’t push too hard on the corruption stuff because it’s going to get me killed.”
Elon Musk has referred to Donald Trump’s “Fight! Fight! Fight!” response to the Butler shooting as an event that inspired special admiration for his “American bad**s” leadership example and decision to support his 2024 campaign.
So, what — beyond both being gobsmackingly rich — do they have in common?
How did the 53-year-old born in South Africa during the era of racial apartheid ever hook up as a tight ally with a 78-year-old property developer and reality TV star from New York, who came to politics very late in life?
Perhaps for starters, both passionately share common values regarding freedom, speech for example. Recall that, in 2021 during the Biden-Harris era, Trump resorted to creating a separate Truth Social media platform, this after having been banned on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
Musk, a censorship opponent, lifted Twitter’s Trump ban after buying the company the following year.
Both Trump and Musk had strong vision and spine to break with failing status quo policies.
Trump turned his successful real estate development and negotiation talents to address complex and daunting national and global policy challenges involving allies and adversaries.
Musk, who originally made his fortune in Silicon Valley, became a wildly successful technical innovator and executive in several industries, including solar energy, electric vehicles, space rocketry, satellite communications, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Both have accomplished remarkable achievements against great odds.
President Trump turned an adversarial mug shot intended to destroy his reelection chances into a popular campaign promotion portrait and photographic victory trophy.
Musk built the most successful automotive startup in a half-century and was recently cheered as a hero by green energy net zero enthusiasts for advancing green energy and EV technology, and figured out how to catch reusable rockets with metal chopsticks after re-entry from space.
Neither are finished setting and achieving marvelous goals
Donald Trump is intent upon making America great again by every metric and ending global wars which threaten to bury human society in nuclear rubble.
Elon Musk is set upon colonizing Mars to preserve humanity and human consciousness before war and/or AI make such self-destruction impossible.
Meanwhile, we can demonstrate appreciation for their vision, inspiration, and resolute courage by voting with ballots against government candidates and TV remotes against media pundits who foment deranged violence by villainizing Trump as a threat to democracy, and Musk as a Nazi.
All bets are off for America’s bright future if we allow terrorists and other psychopaths to prevail in carrying out their threats on such remarkable lives devoted to making ours a better place.
Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and the graduate space architecture program. His latest of 12 books is “Architectures Beyond Boxes and Boundaries: My Life By Design” (2022).
Schumer said the spending bill was “terrible” but that a shutdown would have been far worse, and difficult to end, as President Donald Trump has already slashed jobs and funding for agencies across the government. A shutdown would have given Trump even more power to make cuts, Schumer said, “and so many programs would be lost.”
House Democrats strongly disagreed with Schumer’s decision and criticized him directly: “We will not be complicit,” Democratic leaders said in a joint statement.
The public rift among Democrats, and the onslaught of criticism toward Schumer, came after years of relative unity during Trump’s first term and during President Joe Biden’s time in the White House. It’s a reflection of how Democrats have become increasingly frustrated with their inability to stop Trump’s Cabinet confirmations and mass firings of federal workers.
At a news conference on Friday, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries repeatedly refused to say whether he has confidence in Schumer — a rare break for the two longtime New York colleagues.
“We do not want to shut down the government. But we are not afraid of a government funding showdown,” Jeffries said.
Schumer and Jeffries met in Brooklyn on Sunday, according to two people familiar with the meeting. But the discontent with Schumer went far beyond House leadership, and some of the nation’s most influential progressive groups warned of serious political consequences.
Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, wrote on social media last week that Democratic activists planned to express their anger at town halls or other public events. MoveOn, another progressive group that claims nearly 10 million members nationwide, predicted that its activists would also demand answers from Democratic officials.
“Clearing the way for Donald Trump and Elon Musk to gut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is unacceptable. It’s past time for Democrats to fight and stop acting like it’s business as usual,” said Joel Payne, a spokesperson for MoveOn.
President Donald Trump’s order for airstrikes on Yemen Houthi targets is sending a strong message that goes far beyond them, former Rep. Pete King said on Newsmax Sunday.
“I fully support them; I endorse them,” the New York Republican told Newsmax’s “Wake Up America Weekend.” “Basically, Russia is supplying the Houthis to take these shots at us … it’s important that they be crushed at the start.”
Trump is also sending a message to Iran as well as Russia, he said.
“It’s important for the United States to let the world know that it’s not going to tolerate any of these cheap attacks on us,” he said, adding that because the attacks weren’t carried out by Russia, China, or Iran directly, they were being let go.
“The Houthis, they are subsidized by Russia,” said King. “That’s who’s behind this.”
Former Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., also on Sunday’s program, added that the airstrikes also send the message that there is not a “negligent, lazy, and timid administration in the White House anymore.”
“I think the word got out internationally that Joe Biden was not paying attention,” said Kingston. “The Houthi rebels have been harassing American ships in the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, disrupting commerce, keeping our ships away from there and other ships from other nationalities, and we’ve been talking and talking and talking it to death.”
King, meanwhile, acknowledged there is always a concern that matters could escalate in the Middle East.
“But if we don’t act now, we’re going to see a greater conflagration later on,” he said. “So I would rather take the action now while we do hold the upper hand and use it and not let this get out of control, not let it spread, not let Russia think that it can act with impunity
Opposing the popular-vote winner in President Donald Trump, obstructing his agenda and efforts to cut government waste, fraud, and abuse, and threatening to shut down the government by rejecting their own President Joe Biden-era spending levels in a continuing resolution did not sit well with registered Democrats and left-siding independent adults.
Even a majority of Democrat adults (52%) are saying the leadership of the party is taking things in the wrong direction.
That eye-popping poll result flips the majority that had sided otherwise eight years ago at the start of the first Trump administration, according to CNN.
Democrats’ favorability has dropped 20 points since January 2021 when Biden first took office after Jan. 6, falling now to 29% – a record low dating back to 1992 when former President Bill Clinton came in to defeat sitting President George H.W. Bush. The Republican Party had held the White House for three full terms through former President Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush before Clinton was elected in 1992.
Democrats and Democrat-siding independents give their own leaders just 63% favorability, which is down from 72% in January and 81% at the start of the Biden administration.
Republicans are far more happy with their leaders, as 79% of Republicans and GOP-siding independents have a favorable view of Republicans.
House GOP Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has called Democrats “leaderless” and “rudderless,” and those polled largely agree.
When asked who among Democrats “best reflects the core values” of the party (with no names and just a blank space to respond):
30% did not name someone.
10% said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris 9%.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., 8%.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., 6%.
Former President Barack Obama 4%.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, 4%.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., tied with many others at 2%.
“No one: That’s the problem,” one respondent wrote, CNN reported. “That’s the problem.”
The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS from March 6-9 among 1,206 U.S. adults. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points. In the Democrats’ sub-sample of 504, the margin of error is plus or minus 5.0.
Eric Mack has been a writer and editor at Newsmax since 2016. He is a 1998 Syracuse University journalism graduate and a New York Press Association award-winning writer.
The Department of Education is investigating more than 50 universities for racial discrimination in accordance with President Donald Trump’s executive order to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, which the administration considers as discriminatory against certain students based on race, ethnicity, and other criteria. The department announced the investigations Friday after issuing a memo stating schools and colleges could lose federal money over race considerations in admissions, scholarships, and more.
“Students must be assessed according to merit and accomplishment, not prejudged by the color of their skin,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “We will not yield on this commitment.”
The department is focusing on colleges’ partnerships with the PhD Project, a nonprofit with the stated goal of diversifying the business world by helping minorities receive business degrees. According to department officials, colleges working with the PhD Project are employing race-exclusionary practices in their graduate programs.
Among the 45 colleges being investigated over their involvement with the PhD Project include renowned public universities such as Arizona State, Ohio State, and Rutgers, as well as prestigious private schools like Yale, Cornell, Duke, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The PhD Project released a statement defending its practices, saying it focuses on developing business leaders of the future.
“This year, we have opened our membership application to anyone who shares that vision,” it said.
Arizona State did not contribute to the PhD Project this year. On Feb. 20, it alerted faculty it would not support travel to the nonprofit’s annual conference. Ohio State said in a statement that the university does not discriminate based on race, ethnicity, or any other so-called protected class.
In addition, the department is investigating six other colleges for awarding race-based scholarships: Grand Valley State University, Ithaca College, the New England College of Optometry, the University of Alabama, the University of South Florida, and the University of Oklahoma at Tulsa. The University of Minnesota is also being investigated for allegedly running a program that segregates students on the basis of race. In 2023, a Supreme Court decision prohibited colleges from using race as a factor in admissions in a decision involving the practices of Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The Department of Education has used the ruling as a precedent to forbid race-based practices in not only higher education, but also K-12.
The department’s investigation followed a Feb. 14 memo by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) that called discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin illegal and morally reprehensible, citing the 1964 Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. “In recent years, American educational institutions have discriminated against students on the basis of race, including white and Asian students, many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds and low-income families,” stated Craig Trainor, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights United States Department of Education, in the memo.
The memo accuses colleges, universities, and K-12 schools of using race as a factor in admissions, financial aid, hiring, training, and other institutional programming.
“In a shameful echo of a darker period in this country’s history, many American schools and universities even encourage segregation by race at graduation ceremonies and in dormitories and other facilities,” Trainor said. The OCR memo is being challenged in federal lawsuits from the nation’s two largest teachers’ unions—The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), AFT-Maryland, and the American Sociological Association—who said the memo is too vague and violates the free speech rights of educators.
The Department of Education has also taken aim at colleges and universities it alleges failed to act in the face of anti-Semitism on campuses. On March 7, the department, along with the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. General Services Administration, canceled approximately $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University, citing the school’s inaction amid harassment of Jewish students.
The Democrat party is not simply irrelevant. Rather, it is America’s greatest adversary, driven by globalist priorities and divisive policies — a decaying shell scheming to undermine the nation that Donald Trump revived. From the Rio Grande to the Rust Belt, patriots see the truth: This is a radical mob set on tearing apart our borders, our jobs, and our freedoms. Republicans — especially in Texas, where the battle feels personal — must defeat this threat before it drags the whole country down. This is war — for America, not just Austin.
Once a cornerstone of American political life, the Democrat party has morphed into something unrecognizable — a force that now threatens the fabric of the nation. Historically a party of working-class advocacy and progressive reform, it has abandoned its roots in recent years to embrace a radical, anti-American agenda. This transformation demands scrutiny.
The Democrats once waved the blue-collar flag — FDR, JFK, all that jazz. Now? They’ve betrayed the working man. Newsweek nailed it post-2024: They lost the heartland — Pennsylvania, Michigan, and even Texas saw ranchers and oilmen switch to red. Why? Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) pushed her “Jobs for All” bill in January 2025, promising jobs but delivering billions to green-energy fat cats while rig workers in Odessa barely get by. Trump’s tariffs rebuilt steel towns; Democrats promote solar panels that nobody asked for. America First means jobs, not handouts.
The Democrats’ border policy hits hard, especially in Texas, where illegal crossings overwhelm towns like Del Rio. Since 2021, Biden’s administration has allowed in over 10 million, according to Politico, flooding the streets with drugs and crime. Kamala Harris, the laughable “border czar,” smirked on CNN in 2024, cooing, “We’re a nation of immigrants.” Tell that to the ranchers dodging cartel bullets. Now, in 2025, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is pushing through his “Pathway to Citizenship Act,” a February amnesty bill aimed at securing blue votes nationwide. Trump’s wall helps stop the bleeding; Democrats tear it wide open.
Foreign policy is in disarray under the Democrats. They’ve aligned themselves with the Islamic Republic of Iran since the 2015 nuclear deal; Trump terminated it because it funded terrorism. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) tweeted in 2023, “Sanctions are economic warfare,” advocating for leniency toward Tehran while it attacks Israel. In contrast, Trump’s Abraham Accords advanced peace through strength. In 2025, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt., essentially a Democrat) criticized Trump’s China tariffs in a March speech, calling them “regressive” while Beijing continues dismantling American factories. From Houston to Harrisburg, Democrats betray us to tyrants.
The Democrats cater to globalists, not to Americans. Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act funneled $369 billion into climate initiatives, according to The Guardian, while Texas drillers and Ohio miners received nothing. In February 2025, House speaker Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) promoted the “Global Climate Partnership,” tying U.S. energy to U.N. authorities. Forget that — we’ve got oil in Midland. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) criticized Trump’s China tariffs in a March op-ed, lamenting that they “hurt consumers,” oblivious to the fact that they preserved jobs from Laredo to Lansing. It’s always elites over workers, every single time.
Democrats oppose law and order — end of story. San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin, regarded as a puppet of George Soros, released felons until voters pushed back in 2022. That’s their playbook: defund the police and embrace criminals. ABC News revealed GOP ads in 2024 criticizing blue cities for it — think Chicago, not just Dallas. Now Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) promotes her 2025 “Community Safety Act,” which cuts police budgets for “restorative justice” rhetoric — because feelings can prevent carjackings. Trump’s firm approach succeeds; Democrats encourage chaos.
Democracy? They rig it!
Don’t fall for their “save democracy” tears. The Journal of Democracy reported that 20% of Democrats supported violence in 2021 — less than the GOP’s 30%, but still despicable. They cheered the riots of 2020. Harris tweeted support for bail funds — then cried when Trump defeated them in 2024. Now Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) proposes his Electoral College “reform” bill in 2025, a blatant power-grab aimed at eliminating red states like Texas. Trump won big; they can’t stand it.
Breitbart Business Digest: Trump’s Tariffs Didn’t Tank the Market
Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesJohn Carney
The Tariff Selloff Narrative Doesn’t Make Sense
If you’re looking for an explanation of why the stock market has been stumbling, the financial press has a ready-made answer: blame Trump’s tariffs.
The claim is familiar, convenient, and utterly predictable. It also happens to be wrong. Markets don’t move in neat response to political narratives, and the idea that investors suddenly woke up to the perils of trade policy months after Trump was elected is as laughable as it is lazy.
If the press had a better explanation, they’d use it—so long as it made President Trump look bad. Instead, they’re dusting off the same script they used in 2018. But the numbers—and history—tell a very different story.
The Real Culprit: The End of the Government Spending Boom
Over the last few weeks, technology stocks and other speculative assets cratered, while safe assets such as Berkshire Hathaway, Treasury bonds, and dividend-paying stocks have held steady or even risen. If tariffs were driving the selloff, we would see broad market declines, not a selective retreat from high-risk, high-valuation stocks. This isn’t about tariffs—it’s about investors finally reckoning with the excesses of the past few years.
John Rekenthaler, Vice President for Research at Morningstar, put it plainly: speculators have ruled the market for years, chasing anything that looked exciting. But when confidence shakes, they stampede out the exits—just like we’re seeing now.SUBSCRIBE
By subscribing, you agree to our terms of use & privacy policy. You will receive email marketing messages from Breitbart News Network to the email you provide. You may unsubscribe at any time.
The same thing happened in early 2022 when the Fed started pulling back the easy money. This time, the trigger is different, but the dynamic is the same.
Rekenthaler also made another key point: the market’s timing doesn’t support the tariff panic theory. Tariffs weren’t some surprise revelation. Trump had been talking about them for months, yet the market surged from August through December. If tariffs were such a clear-cut market killer, investors wouldn’t have waited until late February to react. That’s simply not how markets behave. The selloff happened when speculation hit a breaking point—not because of tariffs.
The Sell-Off Is a Rotation, Not a Sign of Economic Doom
Jared Woodard argues in the latest Bank of America RIC Report that this selloff is a rotation, not an economic crisis. The report highlights a major shift in market fundamentals. Tech stocks are plummeting, while sectors such as defense, value stocks, and emerging market debt are gaining. Government-driven growth is fading as public sector hiring slows and spending levels shift. The market is adjusting to a world where speculation and following the government-spending goodie trail is no longer being rewarded.
Fiscal and monetary policy are in transition, forcing investors to reassess risk. High-budget deficits and heavy government spending have propped up speculative assets in recent years, but that cycle is ending. The RIC report underscores a fundamental truth: this selloff is the result of markets recalibrating after an era of over-investment in high-risk, high-momentum stocks. Investors are pulling back not because they fear tariffs, but because they are repositioning in anticipation of a new market environment.
Despite what the financial media wants you to believe, there is no academic support for the idea that tariffs drive broad market selloffs. History tells us the opposite. The Trump tariffs of 2018 and 2019 didn’t tank the market—it kept rising. Even Biden keeping those tariffs in place didn’t stop the rally. Markets only fell when speculative excess and Fed tightening caught up with a factual explanation.
Breitbart Business Digest: Trump’s Tariffs Didn’t Tank the Market
If you’re looking for an explanation of why the stock market tanked, the media would have us believe it is the Trump tariffs.
The claim is familiar, convenient, and utterly predictable. It also happens to be wrong. Markets don’t move in neat response to political narratives, and the idea that investors suddenly woke up to the perils of trade policy months after Trump was elected is as laughable as it is lazy.
If the press had a better explanation, they’d use it—so long as it made President Trump look bad. Instead, they’re dusting off the same script they used in 2018. But the numbers—and history—tell a very different story.
The Real Culprit: The End of the Government Spending Boom
Over the last few weeks, technology stocks and other speculative assets cratered, while safe assets such as Berkshire Hathaway, Treasury bonds, and dividend-paying stocks have held steady or even risen. If tariffs were driving the selloff, we would see broad market declines, not a selective retreat from high-risk, high-valuation stocks. This isn’t about tariffs—it’s about investors finally reckoning with the excesses of the past few years.
John Rekenthaler, Vice President for Research at Morningstar, put it plainly: speculators have ruled the market for years, chasing anything that looked exciting. But when confidence shakes, they stampede out the exits—just like we’re seeing now.
By subscribing, you agree to our terms of use & privacy policy. You will receive email marketing messages from Breitbart News Network to the email you provide. You may unsubscribe at any time.
The same thing happened in early 2022 when the Fed started pulling back the easy money. This time, the trigger is different, but the dynamic is the same.
Rekenthaler also made another key point: the market’s timing doesn’t support the tariff panic theory. Tariffs weren’t some surprise revelation. Trump had been talking about them for months, yet the market surged from August through December. If tariffs were such a clear-cut market killer, investors wouldn’t have waited until late February to react. That’s simply not how markets behave. The selloff happened when speculation hit a breaking point—not because of tariffs.
The Sell-Off Is a Rotation, Not a Sign of Economic Doom
Jared Woodard argues in the latest Bank of America RIC Report that this selloff is a rotation, not an economic crisis. The report highlights a major shift in market fundamentals. Tech stocks are plummeting, while sectors such as defense, value stocks, and emerging market debt are gaining. Government-driven growth is fading as public sector hiring slows and spending levels shift. The market is adjusting to a world where speculation and following the government-spending goodie trail is no longer being rewarded.
Fiscal and monetary policy are in transition, forcing investors to reassess risk. High-budget deficits and heavy government spending have propped up speculative assets in recent years, but that cycle is ending. The RIC report underscores a fundamental truth: this selloff is the result of markets recalibrating after an era of over-investment in high-risk, high-momentum stocks. Investors are pulling back not because they fear tariffs, but because they are repositioning in anticipation of a new market environment.
Despite what the financial media wants you to believe, there is no academic support for the idea that tariffs drive broad market selloffs. History tells us the opposite. The Trump tariffs of 2018 and 2019 didn’t tank the market—it kept rising. Even Biden keeping those tariffs in place didn’t stop the rally. Markets only fell when speculative excess and Fed tightening caught up with
The reality is that tariffs are a long-term adjustment tool, not a short-term market killer. The argument that tariffs are responsible for this downturn is nothing more than a convenient excuse for investors who don’t want to admit that they bet too much on speculative assets.
The Financial Media’s ‘Liar’s Poker’ Routine
In Michael Lewis’ famous Wall Street tome Liar’s Poker, traders are depicted as inventing plausible-sounding but entirely imagined explanations for market moves to satisfy media demand for a simple narrative. When no one knew why the dollar was falling, they’d just blame “Arab selling” because it was a story that couldn’t be refuted. No one had a clue what the Arabs were doing or why, so it was a full-proof answer.
That’s exactly what’s happening now. The financial press needs a tidy explanation for why markets are falling, so they scream “Trump’s tariffs!” It doesn’t have to be true. It just has to sound good enough to keep the anti-Trump narrative
Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) have blown the lid off yet another sham investigation orchestrated by Biden’s corrupt Department of Justice (DOJ) and the politically compromised FBI.
According to newly uncovered documents, the agencies weaponized their power to target President Donald Trump, former Vice President Mike Pence, and their allies through an illegitimate probe dubbed “Arctic Frost.”
Armed with whistleblower disclosures and damning internal documents, the senators are sounding the alarm over “Operation Arctic Frost,” a taxpayer-funded witch hunt that seized government-issued cell phones belonging to former President Donald Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence while conducting a sweeping barrage of interviews across the country.
The FBI did not require a warrant to take possession of government phones from the Biden White House. However, after securing the devices, agents began preparing a search warrant to access their data, sources familiar with the investigation told Fox News.
“The Biden White House played right along with the FBI’s ‘gotcha’ scheme against Trump,” the source told Fox News.
“Biden’s Office of White House Counsel, under the leadership of Dana Remus and Jonathan Su, gave its blessing and accommodation for the FBI to physically obtain Trump and Pence’s phones in early May 2022. Weeks later, the FBI began drafting a search warrant to extract the phones’ data.”
In a fiery letter dated March 13, 2025, addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, Grassley and Johnson pulled no punches.
Kimberley Strassel hits the nail on the head in “Trump’s School Choice” (Potomac Watch, March 7). It is time to end the experiment in federal control over education, returning the matter to states and, more important, to families.
As Ms. Strassel explains, the Education Department is a misnomer. It educates no one. Instead, it functions as a bureaucratic middleman that adds cost and complexity—as well as radical political agendas—at every turn, without adding value anywhere. The proof is in the outcomes. The department’s stated purpose is to close the gap between high- and low-performing students. It has spent $1 trillion since 1979, ostensibly in pursuit of that goal, but the results show the gap is wider today than it was three decades ago. Seven out of 10 fourth-graders today aren’t proficient readers. This is what happens with a system that rewards compliance over competence.
Why has anyone abided such failure? As Ms. Strassel rightly notes, the federal department was never functionally intended to serve students. It was created as a political payoff to the school union bosses and thus built to serve the interests of adults.
This underscores why, finally, President Trump and Congress must put parents squarely in the driver’s seat of their children’s education. When they have the power to take kids out of failing schools, real accountability will follow. Mr. Trump has clearly called for expanding education freedom across this country, and Congress must finally heed his call by including the Educational Choice for Children Act in the upcoming budget reconciliation.
The president’s efforts, including eliminating unneeded and duplicative staff, are far from extreme. They are what is necessary to address and correct the significant challenges facing America’s students and teachers. By shuttering the Education Department for good, we can begin to fix education and help children unlock their full potential.
