On May 16, 2017 someone at the FBI typed that at the top of a case file. The subject was the President of the United States.

Not Oxford. Oxferd. The memos came out this week, and nobody has explained the spelling.

We do not know whether they misspelled it by mistake or on purpose, and probably never will.

We do know the Bureau’s own agents had already dismissed it. Special Agent William Barnett, who worked the case, told the Justice Department that by early 2017 the FBI had mostly ruled out collusion by the campaign.

They opened the file anyway.

In public the story ran the other way. In March 2017, two months before the Bureau opened its file, Adam Schiff told MSNBC there was “more than circumstantial evidence” of collusion, though he could not discuss particulars.

Anyone who said otherwise was a conspiracy theorist. Nobody was told about this file.

For nine years the record showed one investigation: Crossfire Hurricane, opened July 2016 to investigate a campaign.

There was a second. It investigated the president — the man who appoints its director and can fire him at will.

The Bureau wrote that it was investigating whether Donald J. Trump “may be or has been, wittingly or unwittingly, involved in activities for or on behalf of the Government of the Russian Federation,” and whether he had obstructed.

Wittingly or unwittingly.

If Trump was Moscow’s asset, they had him. If he was Moscow’s fool, they had him anyway. It could not lose.

It lost.

The Bureau had already checked. In February 2017 it interviewed Igor Danchenko, the dossier’s primary sub-source, who called some of it hearsay.

And Special Counsel John Durham, in a report the Biden Justice Department released in 2023, found no basis for opening the first investigation at all.

That was the state of the evidence in May 2017, when they opened a second.

The predicate was not a source, an intercept, or a tip from an ally. It was the firing.

A week earlier Trump had fired James Comey, who served at his pleasure. Trump explained the decision publicly, and the Bureau treated the explanation as evidence.

His account, the memo says, “can be reasonably read to imply that the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation was a factor” in the firing.

Suppose it did. A president may fire the FBI director for that reason or for none. The power does not turn on the Bureau’s view of his motive.

So he used a power the Constitution gives him alone, said why, and the agency answerable to him opened a file on him for saying so. General Counsel James Baker and counterintelligence chief William Priestap signed it on May 16.

Acting Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were told the probe had been launched. The next day Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller.

Twenty-four hours.

Two days after Mueller was appointed, Peter Strzok, who had run Crossfire Hurricane for ten months, was deciding whether to join him.

He texted FBI lawyer Lisa Page that he hesitated because of his “gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

Then he took the job.

Nine months earlier, on August 3, 2016, Brennan briefed Obama, Biden, Clapper and Comey on intelligence that Clinton had approved a plan to manufacture a Russia scandal against Trump.

Comey was in the room. Crossfire Hurricane was four days old.

That is the sequence I laid out in Clinton Hoax, Obama Coup. Benghazi produced the lie about the video, and the investigations into that lie exposed Hillary Clinton’s private server.

The Bureau did not stop at the server. Agents in four field offices examined whether Clinton Foundation donors had bought policy from her State Department, until Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates ordered it shut down.

Her campaign needed a bigger scandal, so it paid for one: the opposition research Steele and Fusion GPS laundered into an FBI file, which Kevin Clinesmith later kept alive by falsifying an email.

Despite all of it, the American people delivered their verdict in November. They elected Donald Trump.

That is where it should have ended.

It did not. On December 9 then-President Obama ordered the Intelligence Community Assessment, and Brennan hand-picked analysts from three agencies — CIA, FBI and NSA — not all seventeen.

Brennan wanted high confidence that Russia had acted to help Trump win. NSA director Mike Rogers would not sign at that level.

Brennan told Congress in 2017 the dossier was not used in any way as the basis for it. A CIA review completed in 2025 found a claim drawn from it in the ICA’s main body, supporting the judgment that Putin wanted Trump elected.

The assessment carried the authority of the intelligence community. Fourteen of its seventeen agencies were never asked.

I argued in my book that the assessment was the bridge to Mueller — without it, a special counsel was politically impossible.

I did not know what walked across it.

Oxferd Comma closed on April 9, 2019, weeks after Mueller charged the president with nothing. No asset named, no handler. Two years, and they had not made him even the fool.

The file sat in a vault for nine years. Nobody buries what they got right.

I opened my book with Leonardo’s Adoration of the Magi, unfinished in the Uffizi, where restorers spent years stripping away varnish and overpainting. Horowitz and Durham were a partial restoration: surface flaws confirmed, the worst still classified.

Oxferd Comma is another layer. Grassley pried loose the Durham annex, Gabbard’s office the assessment, and every release has confirmed something denied at the time.

A dirty trick. Then an FBI investigation. Then an intelligence assessment. Then a case file on the president.

The first part was a hoax. What followed was a coup.

That is the book I wrote, and it is not finished.

We still do not know why they could not spell it.

This is not a thought experiment. The bids are out. Zohran Mamdani is building it.

It is not happening because New Yorkers read Marx. It is happening because eggs got expensive.

They got expensive by deliberate policy, over explicit warnings, and the policies have names attached. In March 2021 Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan, $1.9 trillion in new spending poured into an economy already reopening. A month before it passed, Larry Summers — Bill Clinton’s Treasury secretary, Barack Obama’s chief economic adviser, a Democrat who gave money to Biden’s campaign — warned in print that stimulus on that scale risked inflationary pressures of a kind the country had not seen in a generation. The White House waved him off. By June 2022 inflation hit 9.1 percent, the worst reading since 1981.

Supply was being squeezed from the start. On his first day in office Biden revoked the Keystone XL permit; a week later his administration paused new oil and gas leasing on public lands and offshore waters. Add a permitting regime under which a single apartment building can sit in environmental review longer than America fought the Second World War, and you get manufactured scarcity in energy, housing and food at once.

A twenty-seven-year-old is paying that bill in rent. Nine in ten Americans under forty believe their parents had an easier time buying a house, and they are right: roughly 60 percent of metros now qualify as unaffordable. Groceries are still running near a five percent annual pace. Employer health premiums are up six to seven percent this year, double the inflation rate.

Voters understood all of it in November 2024. It is exactly why they elected Donald Trump, who promised to bring prices down on day one.

Then last December, in a Cabinet meeting, the president called the entire subject a con job by the Democrats, a fake narrative that in his words doesn’t mean anything to anybody. He is right about who set the fire and wrong that it is burning. His approval on handling inflation now sits at 34 percent.

That contradiction is what the right is now fighting about. Matt Walsh has spent weeks going after conservatives who wave the crisis away, calling it suicidal idiocy when his own readers insisted food prices were nothing. James Lindsay warns that the left has retooled and now leads with affordability as Marxist materialism, the old grievance in a new wrapper. Each is right about his half. Both are arguing about ideology, and almost nobody is recruited by ideology first.

Here is what conservatives keep refusing to see. Squeeze a man long enough and his time horizon collapses. He stops weighing five-year consequences because he can no longer afford a five-year horizon. He needs October covered. At that point he does not reach for the correct analysis. He reaches for whoever makes the biggest promise and looks him in the eye while making it. A man whose house is burning does not interview the stranger running toward him with a hose. He does not check whether it is connected to anything. He takes it.

Eric Hoffer worked this out seventy-five years ago while unloading ships in San Francisco. Mass movements are not built out of the poor as such. They are built out of the frustrated, people who conclude their own lives are spoiled beyond individual repair and go looking for something larger to belong to. That describes, with uncomfortable precision, a generation that did what it was told and still cannot buy a house.

Which is why Biden’s authorship, however well documented, no longer wins Republicans anything. Blame is a diagnosis, and voters do not grade diagnoses. They grade repairs. Reagan learned this at cost: he inherited Carter’s inflation, backed Volcker, absorbed a savage recession, and surrendered twenty-six House seats in 1982. His diagnosis was right and his cure worked. The recovery simply arrived after the ballots were counted rather than before. Pain runs on schedule. Credit runs late.

That is the Republican disease. Not a failure to assign blame, but treating the assignment of blame as though it were the job. An explanation is a map. Its whole worth is that it shows you what to repair. Skip the repair and the map becomes an alibi, and people under pressure can smell an alibi across a room.

Look at what the alternative has built in the meantime. A year ago the Democratic Socialists of America had two members of Congress. They are on track for at least five after Melat Kiros, a 29-year-old socialist, unseated fifteen-term Rep. Diana DeGette in Denver. The organization claims over 100,000 members and has helped elevate more than 300 candidates nationwide. They are working Colorado, Michigan and Wisconsin. Their leadership talks openly about 2028.

Their remedy is a fraud. You cannot subsidize your way around arithmetic, and Mamdani’s stores will bleed until they close or take a piece of the city’s budget with them. But a fraudulent offer beats no offer every time, and it beats a lecture by considerably more. Truth that arrives in five years loses to a lie that arrives Tuesday.

Nor is this a left-wing pathology. It is a human one. Desperation makes bad customers of us all, which is exactly why relief is not charity or capitulation. It is a firebreak.

So stop telling a twenty-seven-year-old his rent is a character flaw, and stop telling him the thing crushing him is a con job. Lindsay has the left’s strategy right and the target wrong. Insulting a man does not cure him of socialism. It recruits him.

Name what Biden did, plainly, more times than feels dignified. Then build. Housing supply. Permitting. Hospital prices. Fast enough that he feels it in a bank statement before he votes. Both, or neither counts: explaining without building is an alibi, and building without explaining hands the next election back to the men who caused the damage.

Republicans have ninety days. Spend them arguing over who lit the fire, and the country goes to the men who lit it — the ones now going door to door with a hose that isn’t connected to anything.

Candace Owens has positioned herself at the center of this effort. She is not simply raising questions about the official account of Kirk’s death. She is attempting to inherit his authority by systematically discrediting the people closest to him — beginning with his widow, Erika Kirk.

This is not standard political commentary. It is posthumous identity theft dressed up as loyalty. Owens claims a superior understanding of who Charlie Kirk “really” was, one that supposedly supersedes his marriage, his family, and the organization he built. In practice, this means every statement from Erika Kirk, every decision by Turning Point USA, and every piece of evidence presented in court is treated as potential evidence of concealment.

The mechanics are efficient. Charlie Kirk cannot respond. Erika Kirk faces an impossible standard: any composure is read as coldness, any emotion as performance, any defense of her husband’s organization as ambition, and any request for privacy as proof of something to hide.

Owens has released private audio of Erika addressing staff in the immediate aftermath of the murder and scrutinized her tone and demeanor. She has launched extended commentary on Erika’s background and family. She has floated theories involving foreign governments, internal betrayal, and even bizarre personal claims about Kirk himself.

Each new allegation expands the circle of suspicion. When evidence emerges that implicates the man charged with the murder, it is reframed as potentially unreliable. When people damaged by the accusations push back legally, the lawsuits themselves are presented as further confirmation of a cover-up. The system is designed to be unfalsifiable. Every rebuttal becomes additional content.

This approach has reoriented the story around Owens herself. The central question is no longer who killed Charlie Kirk or how his family and movement should move forward. It has become whether Candace Owens will ultimately be vindicated. That is narrative narcissism of a particularly corrosive kind.

It also represents a sharp departure from the method Charlie Kirk actually practiced. Kirk built his reputation by debating openly, attaching his name to arguments, and inviting direct challenge. The current campaign against his widow and colleagues operates through implication, selective leaks, speculation about private conversations the deceased can no longer clarify, and the steady erosion of anyone who refuses to accept Owens’s framing. It replaces public argument with something closer to private divination.

The commercial logic is straightforward. A resolved case ends the series. An endlessly expandable conspiracy sustains it. Reconciliation between Owens and Kirk’s family would produce no new episodes and no new revenue. Continued conflict does. In this model, the grief of actual survivors is not an obstacle to be respected but material to be mined.

People who are not conservatives have discovered that they can build an audience by importing tactics once associated with the worst of left-wing media: replacing evidence with narrative, treating the most dramatic accusation as the bravest stance, and dismissing any demand for proof as weakness or complicity. The result is not deeper understanding. It is a system designed to protect the accuser from ever being held accountable to facts.

Charlie Kirk spent his life building institutions and persuading people through argument. The effort to commandeer his death by attacking his widow and turning his memory into serialized suspicion does not honor that work. It takes advantage of his absence.

In contrast to efforts that turn a man’s murder into perpetual content and suspicion, some are attempting to reflect on Charlie Kirk’s life and death with the seriousness they deserve. My book, For Christ and Country: The Martyrdom of Charlie Kirk, seeks to honor what he actually built and what his assassination truly represents, rather than conscripting his memory into someone else’s ongoing narrative.

The first assassination ended Charlie Kirk’s life. The second is an attempt to strip his widow of moral standing and convert his memory into someone else’s ongoing content operation. One was an act of violence. The other is an act of calculated appropriation. Both are assaults on what Kirk actually stood for.

Gov. Gavin Newsom called rising fuel costs “Donald Trump’s Iran war tax,” as if Californians arrived at six-dollar gasoline by way of Tehran.

It was a useful line because it sent voters looking in the wrong direction.

While Newsom was pointing overseas, California’s own gas-tax increase was waiting on the calendar. On July 1, the state gasoline excise tax rises again, from 61.2 cents to 63.4 cents per gallon. Diesel goes up too.

So much for the foreign culprit.

Iran may explain a temporary spike in oil prices. Trump may affect energy markets. But does either explain California’s permanent premium? Does either explain why drivers in Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Florida, or Tennessee do not pay California prices under every president, during every crisis, and after every foreign headline fades?

Sacramento explains that.

California’s gas prices are not a mystery imposed from abroad. They are the result of deliberate policy: excise taxes, sales taxes, cap-and-trade costs, low-carbon fuel mandates, special fuel-blend rules, refinery constraints, regulation, and a political class that treats gasoline less as a necessity than as a vice.

Then, when prices become embarrassing, the same politicians look for a scapegoat.

That is now the ritual. Tax the gallon. Regulate the gallon. Restrict the refinery. Discourage the industry. Add compliance costs. Limit flexibility. Then blame someone else when the working man pulls up to the pump and discovers California has turned his commute into a luxury good.

The timing makes the latest excuse especially shameless. Newsom was blaming “Trump’s Iran war tax” while Sacramento’s own tax hike was approaching right on schedule. The governor was pointing toward Tehran while his state was reaching again into the pockets of California drivers.

What would Democrats call it if a Republican governor blamed a foreign war for high prices while quietly raising his own fuel tax at home? What would they call it if a red state punished drivers through regulation and then blamed Washington for the result?

They would call it fraud. And they would be right.

Foreign wars and oil disruptions matter. But they do not hit every state the same way. California has made itself uniquely vulnerable. It requires special gasoline blends. It has limited connection to the rest of the country’s fuel supply. It relies heavily on imports. Its refinery base has weakened. Its environmental rules add costs other states do not impose. Its taxes and fees are among the nation’s highest.

So when trouble arrives, California feels it first and worst. That is not bad luck. It is policy.

The people hurt most are not the wealthy progressives who can absorb another dollar a gallon as the price of virtue. They are the people who keep California functioning: contractors, landscapers, farmworkers, nurses, delivery drivers, restaurant workers, small-business owners, and parents driving children to school. Sacramento writes the rules. They pay for them.

That is the old hypocrisy of California progressivism. It speaks in the language of the poor and governs for the habits of the affluent.

The latest tax increase will be defended as modest. Two cents and change, they will say. But that is how California government works. A few cents here. A fee there. A hidden compliance cost. A regulation. A lawsuit. A permit delay. A refinery closure.

At what point do the “small” costs become one large burden? At what point are Californians allowed to notice that every Sacramento solution ends with them paying more?

No single item is ever blamed for the whole burden. Together, they produce the most expensive ordinary life in America.

The pump is where the abstraction ends.

A driver does not see committee hearings, agency memos, climate models, fuel standards, or press releases. He sees the number spinning. He sees what it costs to get to work. He sees the state taking its cut while the governor tells him to blame Trump.

California Democrats cannot have it both ways. They cannot design a fuel system meant to make gasoline more expensive and then feign surprise when gasoline becomes expensive. They cannot treat high prices as a climate tool in January and a Republican conspiracy in June. They cannot blame an “Iran war tax” while raising their own tax on July 1.

Do California’s leaders actually want cheap gasoline? Their policies suggest they do not. They want expensive gasoline with political deniability. They want drivers to change their behavior without admitting that pain is the instrument. They want the revenue from the tax, the virtue of the mandate, and the scapegoat when voters complain.

A serious state would pause the increase. It would review the mandates. It would protect refining capacity. It would stop pretending Californians can live without affordable fuel.

But California is governed by performance. The performance is environmental virtue. The reality is a working family watching another gallon become more expensive because Sacramento would rather blame Tehran than restrain itself.

Newsom can point to Trump, Iran, oil companies, price gougers, refiners, and global markets. Californians should look closer to home.

The pain at the pump did not begin in Tehran.

It was built, taxed, and scheduled in Sacramento.

Explosive Drew Allen Show episode: The $850 million Obama ego monument opens on Juneteenth — built on public parkland with taxpayer subsidies, massive overruns, and unpaid Black contractors — while the same elites boycott America’s 250th anniversary.

We contrast Obama’s racially divisive legacy with Trump’s proven successes across two terms, analyze Trump’s Iran deal, roast MLB Pride Month compelled speech, expose California’s insane “prove you’re gay” contract racket and Newsom’s corruption scandals, and break down the heartbreaking death of Disney star Daveigh Chase on Skid Row as proof progressive compassion fails.

This milestone wasn’t handed to him by inheritance, cronyism, or a government sinecure. It resulted from building companies that created hundreds of thousands of jobs, revolutionized electric vehicles and reusable rocketry, and delivered tangible value to millions of shareholders and customers worldwide.

Predictably, much of the political left has erupted in fury. Bernie Sanders, progressives in Congress, and aligned media outlets frame this as proof of a “rigged” economy, “oligarchy,” and the urgent need for wealth taxes. Headlines scream about inequality and “government-backed” fortunes, while calls for confiscatory policies pour in. This reaction exposes a profound disconnect from how markets, innovation, and wealth creation actually work in the real world.

Wealth in a market economy isn’t a fixed pie. Musk’s gains didn’t come by taking from others; they reflect the enormous consumer surplus and productivity his companies generated.

Tesla accelerated the shift to EVs and autonomy. SpaceX slashed launch costs, enabling satellite internet for remote areas and NASA missions at a fraction of legacy prices.

Investors bet on these outcomes, and the market rewarded execution. Paper wealth like this is volatile—tied to stock performance—and often illiquid. Forcing its redistribution punishes the risk-takers who bet everything on ideas others dismissed. It signals to future innovators: succeed too much, and the state will claim the upside.

This outrage doubles as class warfare wrapped in moral panic. Critics decry “billionaires” (now trillionaires) as if voluntary exchange and shareholder value are theft. Yet markets have lifted billions out of poverty globally through similar mechanisms. The left’s preferred alternative—central planning, heavy redistribution, and “equity”—has a track record of stagnation and envy-driven mediocrity.

Jealousy of productive citizens fuels the rhetoric: why celebrate someone who risked bankruptcy multiple times to advance humanity when you can vilify him for not spreading the gains by fiat?

The special venom reserved for Musk makes it personal. Other tech founders or investors have grown extraordinarily wealthy without this level of sustained vitriol. Musk’s sin? He challenges progressive orthodoxies—questioning DEI, union mandates, regulatory capture, open borders without limits, and media narratives. He bought Twitter (now X) to promote free speech, endorsed policies prioritizing competence over identity, and engaged politically against what he sees as institutional decay.

For a left accustomed to cultural dominance in Silicon Valley and legacy media, Musk’s independence is intolerable. His wealth amplifies dissenting ideas, so it must be demonized.

Hypocrisy compounds the irony. Many of the loudest Democratic voices railing against concentrated wealth are comfortable multi-millionaires themselves, often accumulating fortunes while in public office on salaries far below what the private sector pays for equivalent talent.

Nancy Pelosi’s net worth has been estimated in the tens to hundreds of millions, with significant gains from investments and real estate during her decades in Congress.

Chuck Schumer has reported substantial wealth. Bernie Sanders, the lifelong socialist scourge of millionaires, owns multiple homes and has built a personal fortune through book deals and speaking fees that dwarf a senator’s pay.

Elizabeth Warren has pushed wealth taxes while her own finances—bolstered by academia, books, and a spouse’s earnings—place her well into affluent territory.

These politicians didn’t invent reusable rockets or electric semi-trucks. Their wealth often stems from book advances, spouse’s careers, favorable real estate timing, or the revolving door between government and influence. Yet they lecture on the immorality of market success.

A wealth tax on unrealized gains, as some propose, would likely require forced stock sales or valuations that distort markets—hitting innovators hardest while entrenched political insiders, shielded by pensions, connections, and pre-tax structuring, skate by.

Public service shouldn’t be a pathway to personal enrichment, but the selective outrage reveals the game: wealth is fine if it aligns with the right politics or stays quiet.

Musk’s trillion doesn’t “cost” ordinary Americans. His companies pay taxes, employ people at competitive wages, and drive down costs in transportation and energy. SpaceX’s achievements, for instance, save taxpayer dollars on launches compared to old monopolies.

True economic comprehension acknowledges that suppressing such outliers doesn’t uplift the bottom—it flattens the curve downward. History shows dynamic capitalism, with its tolerance for inequality born of value creation, correlates with broad prosperity far better than enforced leveling.

The left’s meltdown isn’t really about the number $1 trillion. It’s about control and narrative. A self-made (multiple times over) engineer-entrepreneur achieving this scale without their blessing threatens the story that only government can solve problems and that ambition must be capped. Markets aren’t perfect—they reward what people value—but they’re superior to the alternative of politicians picking winners.

America should cheer milestones like Musk’s as evidence of possibility, not pathology.

Innovation compounds for everyone. Demonizing the productive while exempting political insiders only breeds cynicism and decline. If the outrage machine can’t grasp that, it confirms their detachment from the real world of creation, risk, and reward.

We rip the SPLC’s hate-for-profit racket, their refusal to drop Charlie Kirk after his assassination, and California’s rigged jungle primary system.

Plus: Steve Hilton’s long-shot governor bid, Candace Owens’ Russia propaganda tour, Trump fixing the Lincoln Reflecting Pool, MTG calling Trump a traitor, and Ireland’s exploding migrant riots.

Drew and Veronica discuss California’s critical primary elections — including the surprisingly competitive Los Angeles mayor’s race featuring Spencer Pratt and the statewide governor’s contest with Steve Hilton — growing tensions between President Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu over Iran, the launch of Pride Month and Tennessee’s declaration of Nuclear Family Month, the UK barring Hasan Piker, the scandal surrounding Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, revelations from Jill Biden’s new memoir, Hunter Biden’s interview with Candace Owens, and the ongoing case of Tina Peters.

In this episode: Martina’s flip-flop, raging Trump Derangement Syndrome, Gavin Newsom’s 100% tax on political persecution victims, MTG & Massie’s tone-deaf Costa Rica vacation, John Cornyn’s primary thrashing, the E. Jean Carroll perjury probe, the Democrat civil war, and Ferrari’s disastrous new electric car.

In California’s 4th District: 28-year incumbent Mike Thompson (6% Heritage score) vs. Bernie-backed Maine carpetbagger Eric Jones. 

We roast Graham Platner (Maine Senate candidate with Nazi-linked tattoo & communist Reddit history), Hasan Piker (mansion Marxist subpoenaed over Cuba trip), and the California homeless crisis — where the homeless have become a Democrat voting constituency.

Plus Thomas Massie’s rapid Liz Cheney transformation and Zohran Mamdani’s fake “balanced” NYC budget gimmicks.

One-party rule turns paradise into poverty.

In this episode: Congressman Thomas Massie gets demolished in his primary, California’s diversity hire truck drivers turn highways into demolition derbies, Ilhan Omar serves up another load of bullshit, and Raúl Castro gets indicted while the media stays silent.

Plus, Trump buys a sushi chain and the left melts down. California Democrats compete in the Retarded Idea Olympics with free dentures for the homeless and backyard BBQ bans. The DNC drops their pathetic 2024 autopsy — and learned nothing. And Trump gives Netanyahu the green light on Iran as the Ayatollahs start packing their bags.Tune in now.

Good evening, everyone. I’m Drew Allen, the Left Coast Liberator, and welcome to this week’s Friday Update — where political correctness comes to die a painful death. Today we’re covering:

• Thomas Massie’s brutal primary loss and the legendary “blowback” that followed

• California’s diversity experiment turning highways into a demolition derby

• Ilhan Omar serving up fresh bullshit

• Obama’s baseball buddy Raúl Castro getting indicted

• Trump buying a sushi chain and sending liberals into full meltdown mode

• California Democrats competing in the Retarded Idea Olympics (Karen Bass with free dentures, Nithya Raman trying to ban backyard BBQs while homeless fires rage 46 times a day)

• The DNC’s pathetic 192-page autopsy on their 2024 disaster

• And President Trump casually dropping the most alpha foreign policy line in recent memory: “Netanyahu will do whatever I want him to do with Iran.”

The Ayatollahs are currently hiding under their desks refreshing Zillow for properties in Oman.

Then: LA mayoral clown show — Karen Bass partying in Ghana while Palisades burned (Bush Katrina flyover anyone?), pushing free dentures for addicts, while socialist Nithya Raman wants to ban backyard BBQs as 46 homeless fires torch the city daily. Reality star Spencer Pratt surges as the voice of sanity.

Plus: San Diego mosque shooting truth, and Mr. Feeny’s open marriage disaster proving traditional values win.

Gavin Newsom has spent years trying to position himself as the future of the Democrat Party.

While he likes to see himself as the next Barack Obama, more and more voters are beginning to see a polished replay of Hillary Clinton in 2016: Overexposed, entitled, and headed toward a reality check, argues Drew Thomas Allen, Daily Signal California contributor, in today’s special video commentary.

The California clown show is in full meltdown. The reckoning is coming.