Conservative Blogger
Tuesday, September 22, 2026
Vance to Newsmax: Denying 'Special Access' to Dishonest Media
Vice President JD Vance defended President Donald Trump's decision to bar CNN, MS Now, and Politico from the White House, telling Newsmax on Monday that the administration is not preventing the outlets from reporting but is refusing to give them "special access" because of what he called dishonest coverage.
"It's not a ban. It's the refusal to grant special access to people who are engaged in dishonest reporting," Vance told "Greg Kelly Reports" from North Carolina before a rally for U.S. Senate candidate Michael Whatley.
Trump announced Friday that CNN, MS Now, and Politico were banned from the White House "effective immediately," accusing the outlets of reporting "FICTION and LIES." Reporters for all three organizations were denied access to the White House grounds Saturday after their passes were deactivated.
CNN, MS Now, and Politico sued the Trump administration Monday, arguing that their exclusion based on the content of their reporting violates the First Amendment. The lawsuit also alleges that the administration violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights by revoking access without notice or an opportunity to respond.
Vance told Newsmax that an "honest news media" is necessary but accused some major outlets of acting as partisan organizations.
"The problem with a few of these media outlets — I wouldn't even say it's most, but some of the bigger media outlets — is they're not really news organizations," Vance said.
"If you're going to be a propaganda arm of the left, why would Donald Trump give you special access to his White House?" he added.
Vance said the administration's action does not prevent the three organizations from continuing to cover Trump.
"Politico will still write their crazy articles. They will still misrepresent what we say and do," Vance said. "What's different is that they don't have an office in the White House anymore."
The three organizations contend that the government cannot condition White House access on favorable coverage. In their lawsuit, they said the Constitution does not permit a president to deprive members of the press of constitutional rights "based solely on his dislike of the content of their reporting."
Vance acknowledged that the dispute would be decided in court.
"Obviously, those organizations are going to sue," he said. "I'm sure the courts will have their say in this."
He also rejected concerns that Trump's decision could establish a precedent that a future Democrat administration could use against conservative media organizations.
Vance pointed to the treatment of conservative outlets during previous administrations and argued that Trump's White House has been more accommodating to ideologically diverse media.
"We want every bias and every perspective to be present, but there are limited spaces," Vance said.
"When you go there, there are only so many places, right? You have to choose some standard for how you dole out seats," he added.
The dispute also disrupted television coverage of Trump on Monday. CNN was scheduled to serve in its rotation in the five-network White House television pool, but after the administration prevented the network from fulfilling the assignment, the pool said it would not provide a replacement.
Trump also defended his action Monday, writing on Truth Social that his administration was not attacking a free press but what he called "FAKE NEWS." The White House said in a statement that the First Amendment protects the outlets' right to publish but does not guarantee them a White House hard pass, a briefing room seat, or a place in the press pool.
Vance similarly maintained that the distinction is between the right to report and privileged physical access to the White House.
"We're not saying Politico can't report," Vance said. "We couldn't do that even if we wanted to."
Credit: https://www.newsmax.com/
Trump Ties the Press in Knots During Visit With Mamdani at Gracie Mansion
 |
If we have only learned one thing about Donald Trump over the last 10 or so years, it would be the fact that he enjoys giving the press absolute hell for their biased questions and "reporting." It was one of the things that attracted so many Republican voters to Trump during his successful 2016 presidential run, and it's kept them in the fold year after year. As RedState has documented, after the president decided on Friday to ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from White House press briefings "as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!," the purported news networks banded together to sue the Trump White House on First Amendment grounds in an attempt to regain access. The rotating TV pool media outlets, including ABC News and Fox News Media, announced on Monday that they were standing in solidarity with the targeted news organizations and would be suspending their "pooled coverage" over Trump's decision. Something else that happened on Monday was Trump visiting New York City and meeting up with socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani ahead of the United Nations speech Trump is supposed to give on Tuesday. After the meeting, which was held at Gracie Mansion, Trump and Mamdani held a presser, where the mayor stood there stone-faced as the president tied the assembled press in knots. After Mamdani answered a question about his thoughts on whether Trump's move with the press was "textbook authoritarianism" (spoiler: he didn't take the bait), Trump himself chimed in and unloaded:
Trump had posted a similar message earlier on Truth Social, again responding to the lawsuit, noting at the end of it that "I have an obligation to fight for the Success and Safety of our Country. FAKE NEWS IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY, and I will do whatever is necessary to make sure that the U.S.A. thrives." As for other happenings at the Mamdani/Trump presser, Trump was cordial to the mayor, saying he hoped Mamdani would be a great mayor because he (Trump) wants good things not just for New York City, but for America: Trump and Mamdani also talked about the Big Apple's Sunnyside Yard housing project, which Trump stopped short of committing full support to:
The Trump administration's TPS revocation also came up during the meeting, and Trump and Mamdani clearly did not agree on it:
Credit: https://redstate.com/ |
Gavin Newsom’s Fang Fang Problem: Spy-Tied McDonald’s Family Pours $4.4 Million Into CA Dems
 |
A California family that built its fortune on McDonald’s franchises reportedly donated more than $4.4 million to Gov. Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, and other leading Democrats. C.C. Yin, the family’s 89-year-old patriarch, is a Chinese immigrant who built a McDonald’s franchise empire and founded the Asian Pacific American Public Affairs (APAPA) association. Newly released FBI files have described suspected Chinese spy Christine Fang as a point of contact for the APAPA and say a top official in the group — identified by sources as C.C. Yin — directed her toward former Rep. Eric Swalwell. Fang also appeared with the Yins at a 2013 APAPA event. C.C. Yin’s brother, Henry Yin, helped arrange Newsom’s 2023 trip to China, where the governor met Xi Jinping, CBS News reported.
Fang used an APAPA chapter as a pipeline into California politics, helping place interns and making herself Swalwell’s main contact with the group before fleeing to China in 2015. Fang had a very well-documented sexual relationship with Swalwell, even managing at one point to get an intern placed in his Washington office. The APAPA, according to a New York Post investigation earlier this month, "is still placing interns with politicians across the US." She didn't stop there, having "also seduced two other politicians she had met through the APAPA network," the Post reported. The Yins, meanwhile, became major donors and door-openers according to CBS. Records show about $364,817 to Newsom campaigns, plus $80,000 to his 2019 inauguration committee and $50,000 to a nonprofit at his direction. They also spell out $214,300 to Harris, along with six-figure gifts to other California Democrats. The same network also wrote $221,700 to Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis between 2018 and 2025 and $115,680 to former state Treasurer John Chiang, showing the Yins were embedded across California’s Democratic power structure. Henry Yin reportedly advised Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna (CA-17) on trade, appeared with Newsom at a 2019 fundraiser, and was described in Chinese state media as an overseas contact for California-China business and talent recruitment. RedState previously reported on his connection to Khanna. An organization press release indicates Henry Yin "has served as Senior Advisor to U.S. Representative Ro Khanna" and "served as President of APAPA’s U.S.-China Trade Committee." Khanna is the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party — the panel created to police CCP influence in American politics, business, and technology. He publicly named Henry Yin his “senior adviser” in 2019. Henry Yin appears to have scrubbed his LinkedIn account, which, as recently as our report on September 2nd, listed him as a senior adviser to Khanna beginning that same year. After the Post asked about the relationship, a Khanna spokeswoman said Henry Yin “lives in Fremont and is a respected community member, but has never held a formal role with the Congressman.” The Post reported that Henry Yin traveled to China as head of a “Silicon Valley Entrepreneurs Delegation,” delivering remarks on “perspectives as overseas Chinese in the U.S.,” from 2013 to 2023, coverage amplified in party-controlled Sichuan media. Official overseas-Chinese affairs reports have called him an “overseas Chinese leader” in California and Silicon Valley. A 2018 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission report describes United Front work as the CCP’s effort “to co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition” to its “policies and authority,” including among overseas Chinese communities. The Yins have not been accused of any wrongdoing. Credit: https://redstate.com/ |
A State’s Right to Secede
 |
“If the states do not have the right to secede, then they have no rights at all.” — Dr. Walter Williams Dr. Williams is one of the few men I’ve ever read who understood the American Constitution. That marvelous document has been so warped all through U.S. history that very few Americans truly understand what our Founders did in the Constitution. It isn’t going to change any time soon, and Dr. Williams’ statement is probably shocking to many. Let’s look at it. The Declaration of Independence created 13 “free and independent states”; it did not create the United States of America (read it). Those states (colonies under England) jealously guarded their individual colonial rights and privileges. When they declared independence, leading minds convinced most colonists that there were certain matters (like fighting a war) that were better accomplished collectively than individually. Many, many of the new Americans were very suspicious of any nationalized government (that was, remember, the very thing they were rebelling against), but enough of them went along with it to establish the United States, and finally, in 1789, provide a constitution for the new nation. That Constitution went into effect only when nine of the states ratified it; the other four didn’t have to, but they eventually did. Each state voluntarily joined the American Union; none of them was forced in, and none of the subsequent 37 states have been “forced” to join the Union, either. That wouldn’t be freedom if they had. In that 1789 Constitution, the “national” government was allowed very limited power. Congress, the only branch with the authority to make laws, was given only about 17 powers (read Article 1, Section 8); that’s all. The powers of Congress, the president, and courts were clearly defined in the Constitution. And just to make sure Congress stayed within its authorized powers, a Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, was added in 1791 to tell Congress what it could not do. The last of those 10 amendments specifically proclaimed that any power not “delegated” to the “United States” belongs to the states or the people. James Madison, who basically authored the Constitution, said that the federal government’s powers were few and defined; the powers that resided in the states were many and indefinite. It made perfect sense. The states were closer to the people; thus, theoretically, they should be more responsive and aware of their needs. A one-size-fits-all protocol probably wouldn’t work in a country as geographically, economically, and ethnically diverse as the United States. So, 13 (eventually 50) states voluntarily joined the Union. They were given most of the governmental rights, and the federal government was not to infringe upon those rights. A contract. But power being what it is — even in the hands of Americans — the feds did, indeed, begin to usurp certain rights that belong only to the states. In other words, the federal government broke the contract. What recourse did the states have? Only submission to tyranny? No, as Dr. Williams said, they had the right to secede if they (eventually) so chose. If they didn’t (don’t), then they really have no rights at all. If all they can do ultimately is submit to whatever Washington, D.C., tells them to do, then what is “states’ rights”? A state only has a “right” if the federal government allows it to have it? That’s not states’ rights; that’s tyranny. Undeniably, throughout American history, states have abused their powers at times, but I encourage readers to peruse Article 1, Section 8 in the Constitution and show me where 99 percent of what Congress spends money on today is found in those defined powers the Constitution gives it. States haven’t abused their powers nearly as often as Congress has abused its. And every abuse of congressional power is tyranny against the states and the people — taking away a right the Constitution gives only to the states and people. And when one denies the states have a right to secede against tyranny, then…well, there remains only a tyrannical, totalitarian national government. Did our Founders have a “right” to secede from England? Did Texas have a “right” to secede from Mexico? Did the Southern states have a “right” to secede from the United States? We may not — and shouldn’t — like slavery, but that’s a different question. Actually, “freedom” would mean a people have the right to secede from their country for any reason. Jefferson in the Declaration: Government’s “just powers” are created by and given from “the consent of the governed.” What can the “governed” do if they no longer “consent” to the government? If they are unwillingly forced to remain in a union they no longer “consent” to, they are no longer “free” to govern themselves. That’s a total denial of the Declaration’s main point. If the American colonists could secede, why can’t the states? So, yes, if states have no right to secede, they ultimately have no rights at all, except whatever the national government allows them. That’s not the American Constitution, that’s Communist China. So, that’s why the Democrats… Disagree with Dr. Williams? Check out Abraham Lincoln: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any port of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement.” Unless, of course, they do it when Abraham Lincoln becomes president. Credit: https://townhall.com/ |
I Can’t Bring Myself to Care About What Happens to Illegal Aliens or Those Who Defend Them
 |
Most people I went to high school with did not go to college. Unless you grew up someplace incredibly wealthy, I bet it’s the same for you. It wasn’t expected of me; it wasn’t even really discussed because the concept was foreign to my family, and I only ended up going full time after a few years of floundering, drinking, and job after job I hated and was miserable doing. I lost touch with most, but not all, people from high school. But losing touch doesn’t mean not knowing what they’re up to. Many went on to big careers and families, and I’m genuinely happy for them. Many of those careers are in the trades — the kinds of jobs you shower from, not for. If you’ve never had one of those, you’re missing out. The satisfaction you get from completing a physical task is unmatched in the white-collar world. It’s why so many rich guys play dress-up and hunt, fish, or do some kind of craft involving woodwork. To this day, as I drive through Detroit on visits, I point out, with pride, to my kids the various apartment buildings I helped put roofs on. Naturally, they couldn’t care less — one of the joys of being 9 and 7 is not understanding much about things beyond your friends and toys — but someday in the next decade, if I do my job as a father right, they will. It will be more difficult for their peers to understand that satisfaction and pride, as the number of those jobs in the physical trades continues to exist, they’re just no longer available to Americans. In my life, I worked more jobs than most families — upwards of 82 at this point — and among them were roofer, electrician’s assistant for a local IBEW, and concrete work. When I did them in the 1990s, the crews were a rainbow of people that could fill a Benetton ad. We didn’t “celebrate” it; we lived it, and it didn’t matter. Most importantly, we were all Americans who could communicate with each other, as we all spoke English. Go anywhere near a job site today, or roll down your windows as you crawl through a construction zone now, and you likely won’t hear English spoken. Maybe from the supervisor, if they happen to be on the job site at that moment, but otherwise you’ll likely hear Spanish. While not impossible, the likelihood of an American only being able to speak Spanish is incredibly low. By law, though seemingly not enforced, you have to have a working understanding of English in order to become a citizen. That means any logical person should assume the crews on these construction sites are made of up, in the most generous scenario, Green Card holders or, in a more likely scenario, illegal aliens. The good jobs that were available to me and my classmates who weren’t cut out for college right out of the box are gone. Well, not gone, just not for us anymore. American kids graduating high school who don’t know what they want to be when they grow up, or know what they want to be and are a journeyman, don’t have the chances that once were. Now, they have to learn Spanish in order to have a shot at one of these jobs. The pathway to the middle class for people who grew up like me has been orange-coned and detoured away from what is one of the best ways forward for a high school graduate or dropout. Those jobs, those industries, have been ceded to illegal aliens with a wink and nod from the political class, or both parties. If you’re good at your job in a skilled trade, you will always have work. Americans no longer have those opportunities. We’re told illegals are “doing the jobs Americans won’t do.” This is a lie; I’ve done those jobs and know people who do them. They aren’t hiring Americans anymore, white, black, or Hispanic (if they aren’t fluent in Spanish). The companies hiring these people need to be fined into oblivion, the illegals deported immediately, and I do not care how many crying neighbors chant as it happens. If they get in the way of federal officers enforcing the law, arrest and throw the book at them. Make enough harsh examples out of lawless leftists, and even the dumb ones will begin to pick up on the concept of consequences. When I see stories like the one in Austin, Texas, about the illegal alien with a final deportation order (meaning he should’ve been long gone already) being shot in a confrontation with ICE, I can’t bring myself to care. He should not have been here; he should not have resisted; he should not have been hired by a food delivery app to deliver food. I do not care — the bleeding needs to be stopped, and then he needs to be put on a plane. Democrats can whine all they want about how mean it is to people they consider their constituents, but it won’t change anything. That dumb Americans elect people to government positions where they will fight harder for illegal aliens with no business being in this country more than they will actual Americans is not my concern; I can’t save stupid people from themselves. My concern is everyone else — the people who have to live in the wake of morons; those who suffer the results of the stupid decisions these elected idiots impose on others. I care about the Americans victimized by illegal alien crime. If they only attacked Democrats who support them being here, I’d care a lot less, but those people are insulated from the violence of their gardeners by heavy police patrols and private security. It’s normal people assaulted, never their kids. As such, when I hear about an illegal alien or left-wing protester hurt “confronting ICE,” or whoever they feel “brave” taking a swing at, I don’t care. I look at it the same way I look at a “bullfighter” being gorged — what did you expect to happen? Bullfighting is savage; it is disgusting and stupid. They drug the bull, poison the bull, wound the bull, then a weakling comes out in a costume with a sword to pretend to “fight” the drugged, confused animal, eventually killing it to make up for physical shortcomings elsewhere. But every once in a while, the bull catches one of these “men” and inflicts real damage through the haze of the poison. I’m on the side of the bull. ICE is the bull, just doing their jobs. And the illegals and the agitators are the “fighters” comfortable in the knowledge that the bull is restrained by law and professionalism, not to mention the human desire to not harm anyone and just get home at the end of a day’s work. They taunt the bull, they antagonize the bull, they resist the bull, and every once in a while, they cross the line and threaten the bull. For that, there are consequences. The only real shock I’ve seen is that it doesn’t happen more often, given how many illegal aliens are taken into custody and how many cosplaying leftists have no understanding of how laws work and where the lines for self-defense are. But ultimately, I don’t care. If you don’t want to get hit by a train, don’t play on the train tracks. If you don’t want to get deported, don’t come into the country illegally. Don’t want to lose in a physical confrontation with law enforcement, don’t start a physical confrontation with law enforcement. Most of life’s questions have obvious answers; this is no different. It’s just a matter of acknowledging them and moving on. I invite you to join me in actively not caring and making your unambiguous disinterest known on social media. Don’t click on their stories, don’t fall for the outrage, just express your disinterest and then ignore them. Maybe they’ll get it then? Probably not, but maybe. And then vote against them in November and make sure everyone you know who agrees with you votes that way, too, even if they don’t want to vote. Ultimately, that’s the only way to really beat these people. Derek Hunter is the host of the Derek Hunter Show on WMAL in Washington, D.C., has a free daily podcast (subscribe!), and is the author of the book "Outrage, INC.," which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses, and is the host of the weekly “Week in F***ing Review” podcast where the news is spoken about the way it deserves to be. Follow him on X at @DerekAHunter. |
The Dem Advantage Heading Into the Fall Months Doesn't Show Blue Wave Potential
 |
President Donald Trump and the GOP should be bracing for a walloping. Look, this administration has gotten a lot done, but gas prices, the lingering Iran War, and the cost of living remain salient, and the indicators are not good right now. Going against the historical tide of midterms for the party in power is a Herculean climb. But gerrymandering, and Democrats being even more unpopular than Trump and the Republicans, might offer a glimmer of hope that they could pull off an upset and retain control of Congress (via NY Post):
It’s a base election, seasoned with asking voters ‘who sucks more, and who’s crazier'. That title belongs solely to the Democrats. Trump and the GOP need to get their act together, lower gas prices, and pass the SAVE America Act. The base does not care about procedural deference or any defense of the filibuster. It should’ve been nuked and this law signed by now, but a horde of GOP senators would rather stare Armageddon in the face and pray for a miracle. Both parties share this mentality, to be honest: we want something that energizes us to vote, and doing nothing or clinching moral victories doesn’t cut it anymore. Credit: https://townhall.com/ |
CIA Director Ratcliffe meets with Zelensky in Ireland
 |
United States Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Ratcliffe reportedly met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at Shannon Airport in County Clare, Ireland. Multiple outlets reported that the pair spoke informally on Monday while their planes refueled en route back to the U.S., where Zelensky is heading to New York City to attend the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. Details of the meeting were kept confidential at the request of Zelensky and Ratcliffe, as the discussions involved “sensitive matters.” Ratcliffe was returning from high-level consultations with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi when he convened with Zelensky. The Cairo summit covered a broad spectrum of critical national security and regional stability matters, including intelligence sharing, the escalation surrounding Iran, negotiated ceasefire efforts in Gaza and ongoing crises across East Africa — specifically the Sudanese civil war and instability in Somalia. Ratcliffe’s engagement with Zelensky occurs less than a month after the CIA director conducted a confidential trip to Moscow to confer directly with senior Russian intelligence leadership. While neither Ratcliffe nor the CIA released an official record of those talks, a source familiar with the engagement confirmed to Reuters that the situation in Ukraine formed a primary topic of discussion during his Moscow meetings, despite the precise contents remaining undisclosed. Before assuming his current role as director of the CIA, Ratcliffe served as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) from 2020 to 2021. An attorney and politician, he previously represented Texas’s 4th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2015 to 2020, where he established a prominent record on intelligence oversight and federal cybersecurity policy. Credit: https://www.oann.com/ |
President Trump Eyes Hard Strike or Deal as US Clears Iran Delegation
The State Department quietly did something Washington always pretends it hates to do: it approved visas that will let a reduced Iranian “core delegation” come to New York for UN General Assembly week. At the same time, President Trump told Axios he has “a big decision” about the Iran war — even asking whether to “annihilate” the regime — and plans to hear from Gulf leaders in town before he decides. Translation: the UN isn’t just photo ops this year. It’s a live chance for either serious diplomacy or dangerous escalation.
What Washington actually approved — and why it matters
The Americans are letting a slimmed-down Iranian team into the United States, while putting tight limits on their movement and purchases. Reported names include Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The State Department says delegates will face travel restrictions and bans on buying luxury goods — a bow to both legal host-country duties and political common sense. But giving safe harbor, however restricted, to the architects of a war on our terms is still uncomfortable. If we must host them, at least make sure the rules are enforced and the watch lists stay on duty.
Trump’s “big decision”: blunt, risky, or brilliant?
President Trump told reporters he’s weighing whether to strike harder or seek a deal — and that he’ll consult Gulf leaders in New York before deciding. That is straight talk, not political theater. You can like it or hate it, but forcing hard choices into the daylight is better than bureaucratic dithering. Face-to-face diplomacy has produced deals before, and Trump’s willingness to cut a bargain with Iran could end the fighting fast. Or, as he warned himself, it could mean moving toward a major military option. Either way, the president is keeping options open — and that’s precisely what a country at war should be doing.
Diplomacy versus propaganda — the dangerous tightrope
The visa decision reflects a legal and practical tightrope: the U.S. must allow delegations to the UN, but it can limit movement and message. The risk is obvious. Iran will try to use any public appearance as propaganda, and its leaders may seek private contacts to shift the narrative or shop for concessions. The State Department’s restrictions — enforced by people like spokesman Tommy Pigott — are a start. But the reality is that the mere presence of Iranian leaders in New York raises the chance of back-channel meetings, risky optics, and headline-grabbing confrontations. That’s why clarity from the White House about red lines is essential.
What to watch this week — and the bottom line
Keep your eyes on three things: whether any Trump-Iran meeting is actually arranged, what Gulf partners tell President Trump in private, and how strictly the State Department enforces travel and purchase bans. This UN week could be a turning point — either the moment a deal ends the war or the moment the conflict spirals into something much worse. For conservatives who want American strength with smart diplomacy, the correct approach is simple: back decisive leadership, insist on clear conditions, and refuse to allow Geneva-style niceties to replace real security. The rest will be theater — and in theater, the props can get you killed.
Credit: https://patriotpowerednetwork.com/
Rufo: Gas Pain and Iran War Threaten GOP 2026 Midterms
Christopher Rufo, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and Contributing Editor at City Journal, dropped a plain-spoken warning on HBO’s Real Time: Republicans’ 2026 midterm prospects are being hurt “if gas wasn’t $6, if there wasn’t a war with no end in sight in Iran.” He wasn’t doing rhetorical softening. That blunt line matters because it ties everyday pain at the pump to foreign policy and party strategy — and it should make Republican leaders uncomfortable in the best possible way.
Rufo’s point: gas prices and the Iran war are political liabilities
Rufo’s appearance on Real Time and the post-show Overtime clip put a spotlight on two simple facts voters notice every time they fill their tanks: higher pump prices and a long-running confrontation with Iran. National averages are lower than $6 for regular gasoline, but many Americans — especially in states like California and for diesel users
— are already seeing numbers near or above that mark. Meanwhile, repeated strikes, counterstrikes, and attacks on shipping are keeping oil markets jittery. Those are real costs felt by real people, and Rufo is right that they translate into votes.
Why Republicans should stop pretending it’s someone else’s problem
Rufo calls this partly “self-inflicted,” and that stings because it’s true. Voters don’t care about political nuance when their grocery bills and commutes get dearer. Blaming “market forces” or hoping the issue vanishes won’t cut it. The GOP needs to stop treating energy like a wonky side note and start treating it like the kitchen-table issue it is. If moderates and the base are both frustrated, it’s time for leadership to stop gaslighting the electorate and start offering straightforward, commonsense fixes.
Conservative fixes that actually help voters and win elections
Conservatives should answer Rufo’s warning with policy, not bumper-sticker outrage. That means boosting domestic energy production, accelerating sensible permitting reform, using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
judiciously, and pushing for steel‑spine deterrence to keep shipping lanes open. It also means a sharper message: explain how plans lower costs, who benefits, and why a crowded courtroom of pundits and promise-makers can’t replace real Republican governance. Voters want results, not rhetoric.
Rufo’s clip on Real Time is a reminder: the 2026 midterms won’t be decided by cable fights or political purity tests. They’ll be decided by whether the GOP convinces ordinary Americans that their party can lower prices, restore stability, and stop apologizing for wanting both. If leadership treats that as trivia, expect Rufo’s warning to become prophecy — with Democrats happily taking notes.
Credit: https://patriotpowerednetwork.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
We’ll discuss her bizarre press conference later this morning, but New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill wants to shift focus away from the thousa...
-
U.S. President Donald Trump dances after speaking at General Motors’ Milford Proving Grounds on July 27, 2026 in Milford, Michigan. Trump i...
-
There was a horrific shooting at the Bite of Seattle food festival over the weekend. On Sunday, two suspects reportedly engaged in a gun ...
