Trump 2: Electric Boogaloo, is upon us. On Wednesday, Donald Trump returned to Washington. He began by going to the House of Representatives, where he was met with raucous applause; everyone was really excited. And they had good reason to be; his coattails helped retain the House majority, which is incredibly slim. Then, he went to the White House — and he was only the second happiest man in the room. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen Joe Biden this happy. It’s so good. It’s so good. Let’s take the time machine back to 2016, when President Trump beat Hillary Clinton and then had to go to the White House and meet Barack Obama. Obama was clearly deeply perturbed by meeting with Donald Trump.  The opposite was true on Wednesday. Why? Because Joe Biden despises Kamala Harris. Despises her. So does Jill Biden. There is no question that Joe and Jill voted for Donald Trump. I have no doubt in my mind that they both voted for Donald Trump. WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show Sitting next to a roaring fire — these two new best friends straight from the resort city of Zihuatanejo — Trump and Biden sat next to one another and joked around. It’s almost as though Joe Biden didn’t actually believe that Trump was Hitler. It’s almost as though all of that stuff about Donald Trump being Hitler was crap and Biden knew it. Joe Biden looked excited to be there. Trump was joking with him. And behind them, the roaring fire enjoying a crisp Washington, D.C. morning. Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images If you saw the scene, you heard the media yelling about President Trump, and the camera panned over to Biden, with a big smile on his face, super happy. What a glorious time he was having. They did release a photo of Jill and Joe with Trump, all grinning broadly. No one in America is happier that Kamala Harris lost than Joe Biden, who was stabbed in the back by Kamala Harris, who then replaced him and lost. And then everybody blamed Joe Biden anyway. So, Biden is super happy that Donald Trump won. The pictures are just hilarious and the memes have been extraordinary.  According to The Washington Post: For Trump, it marked a triumphant return to an office where he sat for four years, a week after decisively winning an election by relentlessly attacking Biden’s mental capacity and then by casting the Biden administration as a disaster. “Congratulations,” Biden said at the start of the meeting, during the brief time reporters were in the room. He added that he hoped it would be a smooth transition. “Politics is tough, and in many cases it’s not a nice world,” Trump responded. “But it is a nice world today.” The meeting stretched for nearly two hours, longer than the one Trump had eight years ago with President Barack Obama. … White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called it a “substantive meeting and exchange of views.” She said that she spoke with Biden after the meeting ended and that he wanted to emphasize that Trump “was gracious” and that he came to the meeting with a detailed list of questions.  So, once again, Trump has a new best friend. Maybe Donald Trump will not only pardon Hunter Biden, perhaps he’ll appoint Joe Biden to a position in his administration. You never know. What the heck, Joe Biden — “The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters”— was one heck of a loyal supporter of Trump during the latter part of Trump’s campaign.

Young star Sydney Sweeney hit back at the claim that women are “empowering” each other in Hollywood and said “it’s all fake.” Speaking to Vanity Fair, the 27-year-old actress was asked about recent comments by Jennifer Lawrence and Anne Hathaway who said female performers have a tendency to knock down women at their professional peak. It came after a film producer, earlier this year, attacked Sweeney’s talent and looks. “It’s very disheartening to see women tear other women down, especially when women who are successful in other avenues of their industry see younger talent working really hard—hoping to achieve whatever dreams that they may have—and then trying to bash and discredit any work that they’ve done,” Sweeney said. “This entire industry, all people say is ‘Women empowering other women.’ None of it’s happening. All of it is fake and a front for all the other sh*t that they say behind everyone’s back.” “I mean, there’s so many studies and different opinions on the reasoning behind it,” she added.  “I’ve read that our entire lives, we were raised—and it’s a generational problem—to believe only one woman can be at the top. There’s one woman who can get the man. There’s one woman who can be, I don’t know, anything.” Sit back, relax, and have a cheese break with @sydney_sweeney. Watch the full #VFHollywood video: https://t.co/WQTsdUyRmk pic.twitter.com/lPl7BjruBW — VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) November 14, 2024 “So then all the others feel like they have to fight each other or take that one woman down instead of being like, Let’s all lift each other up. I’m still trying to figure it out,” Sweeney continued. “I’m just trying my best over here. Why am I getting attacked?” The “Euphoria” star recently called out the paparazzi and admitted she feels unsafe at her home due to them and overzealous fan appearances there, Glamour reported. MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+ “[Photographers] said, ‘If you tell her to just come outside in a bikini, I’ll take pictures and then I’ll leave you alone,’” Sweeney said, adding that some critics started saying she had called the press herself to gain attention. “Why would I call the paparazzi to take pictures of me at my own house when my baby cousins and family are there and I’m in my backyard? Why would I ever want that?” she added. I” have pictures of these guys in kayaks hiding in bushes in the ocean. They got there at 8 a.m. and wouldn’t leave until 4 p.m. I should be able to be in my home and feel comfortable and safe.” “When those photos go out, then my actual safety is at risk,” Sweeney continued. “Everyone knows where I am. Now there’s boats that go by, and I literally hear them say, ‘This is Sydney Sweeney’s house.’ It becomes a star tour in my front yard.” Amanda Harding contributed to this piece.

'There are career staff texting me saying this was just the push they needed'

The wild, wild west of college athletics continues

Russian aircraft ignored international aviation protocols

Firing incompetent generals is a good thing. In fact, it might be what the military needs right now to regain the confidence of the American people. According to a number of reports, President-elect Donald Trump will be creating a commission to review leaders in the military with the assumption that many of the top brass will be fired. Trump will be using a “warrior board” of retired officers, the Hill reported, to review our current crop of three- and four-star officers and will weed out the ones the commission disapproves of. That’s not all. Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth—an Army veteran who has been awarded two Bronze Stars, and who served in Iraq and Afghanistan—said in past interviews that it’s necessary to remove “woke” senior military officials who have left the U.S. armed forces in a sorry state. “First of all, you’ve got to fire [the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and obviously you’ve got to bring in a new secretary of defense, but any general that was involved—general, admiral, whatever—that was involved in any of the DEI woke s—, has got to go,” Hegseth said in an early November interview on “The Shawn Ryan Show” podcast. DEI is shorthand for diversity, equity, and inclusion. Pete Hegseth is ready for day one as Defense Secretary.'All the woke Generals must be fired immediately.'pic.twitter.com/ai9cqoImj4— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) November 13, 2024 Trump and Hegseth—the author of “The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free” and “Modern Warriors: Real Stories from Real Heroes”—clearly intend to shake up the military at the top. The Left, however, isn’t taking it well. Legacy media is reporting on that development as if it’s some kind of ominous sign that Trump will “politicize” the military. They are even calling it a “purge.” One left-wing podcaster, Fred Wellman, who includes “democracy advocate” in his X bio, even posted that removing generals is “truly fascist.” This is truly fascist. The idea is they'll review and fire generals is chilling beyond measure and will damage our military for a generation. You don't make generals overnight. It takes decades. The good ones will leave early instead of waiting to be destroyed. (gift)…— Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) November 12, 2024 Ah, yes, civilian control of the military, so fascist. For a quick history lesson, a president’s removal of generals and other high-ranking military leaders—especially after years of relative “peace”—has often been a significant boon, not a hindrance, to the military. Peacetime militaries—and I only use that phrase loosely to refer to our own era of near-constant, low-level asymmetrical conflicts—frequently calcify. Leaders who successfully navigate the bureaucratic treadmill to make it to the top ranks in those times are frequently not the best wartime leaders. Militaries need to be shaken up from time to time. In the War of 1812, many American military officers were holdovers from the American Revolution. Many had grown old and ineffective. The crucible of war allowed junior commanders like Winfield Scott to emerge as a brilliant young general who would prove instrumental in that war and future conflicts. In the Civil War, there was a tremendous shake-up of the senior ranks on both sides. Marginal officers like Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, who was almost entirely overlooked at the Virginia Military Institute, proved himself to be one of the most astoundingly gifted military commanders once he had a chance to prove himself in battle. Abraham Lincoln suffered through far too many mediocrities at the top before finding war winners like Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. Almost none of the top commanders at the beginning of the war ended up in the same place by the war’s end. Right now, the United States clearly needs a shake-up at the Pentagon in the worst way. The world is in turmoil, thanks in no small part to the Biden administration, and we are closer to seeing an actual peer-to-peer conflict than perhaps at any point since World War II. Yet, many on the Left are hyperventilating about the move. Why? It’s a pretty good sign that they know they’ve made serious inroads into military institutions that are historically traditional and conservative. They don’t want to lose their grip on the military, just as they fear losing control of any other institution they dominate. The primary issue, beyond typical military calcification, is that our current military leadership appears to be filled with those who have floated to the top amid the general woke-ification of American society and government. It’s not Trump who will be “politicizing” the military; it’s the military itself that has been politicized. DEI, critical race theory, and other radical ideologies have been force-fed into military institutions, and the Biden administration was only too happy to accelerate that transformation. They justified DEI by saying that it would create a better, more cohesive military and deepen the pool of recruits. That was the same unproven, bogus argument corporate America made when it went whole hog on “diversity” to the point of climbing aboard the discrimination bandwagon. But much like the corporate DEI push—which proved a financial liability, rather than a boon—the military DEI advocacy has failed to “succeed” by even the most basic measures. Nearly every branch of the military now faces a historic recruitment crisis, not to mention a surge in worrisome incidents that suggest a decline in competence and warfighting capability. To make matters worse—and this is why Trump’s shake-up is almost certainly necessary—the military has failed to hold anyone at the top accountable for notable failures on the international stage. Those failures have significantly weakened this country’s prestige and credibility abroad. Most notably was the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan. After that failure, nobody at the top got fired. The Biden administration and the military moved on, as if nothing had happened. If we can’t handle our business against the Taliban, isn’t it worth questioning our ability to counter far greater potential adversaries, such as China? To underscore the notion that the military has lost all accountability at the top, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin disappeared for nearly a week early this year to take care of a health issue before notifying the president. If these are the sorts of “invaluable” leaders we may lose if Trump gets his way, it’s hard not to see the president-to-be’s “warrior board” as a net positive. This country should expect a lot better of its military. This seems like an important moment for a “democratic” correction to a military that has seen a sharp decline in public trust. Under Biden, the buck stopped nowhere. With Trump, maybe more capable leaders will have a chance to rise to the top and get our military back to focusing on preparedness and defending the American people. The post Firing Incompetent and Woke Generals Is Necessary, Not ‘Fascism’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Republicans accuse Democrats of not accepting the results of the Senate election in Pennsylvania, but trying to steal it instead from GOP challenger Dave McCormick and hand it to incumbent Democrat Bob Casey Jr. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, and officials in  his administration insisted before and on Election Day that the state would have secure and fair elections.  After the election, though, as a recount of the Senate race unfolds, the Casey campaign—declared the loser by most news organizations—alleges that McCormick and the Republicans want to “disenfranchise” voters.  Casey supporters also claim that McCormick—declared the winner by most media outlets—is trying to “silence Pennsylvanians.” The McCormick campaign and other Republicans have challenged the legitimacy of mail-in and provisional ballots in the election. Meanwhile, the Casey campaign and other Democrats have argued against disqualifying ballots from those not listed on voter rolls.  Before the election, the general consensus was that the Keystone State and its 19 electoral votes provided the key to the presidential election.  That wasn’t the case, however, as former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, swept all seven battleground states Nov. 5 to win the popular vote as well as a total of 312 electoral votes to defeat Vice President Kamala Harris, Democrats’ nominee.  But the Senate race in Pennsylvania came down to the wire. Decision Desk HQ formally called the race Thursday for McCormick. The Associated Press had called the race for McCormick the previous Friday, Nov. 8.  Decision Desk HQ projects David McCormick (R) wins the US Senate election in Pennsylvania.#DecisionMade: 2:25pm ETFollow live results here:https://t.co/jw2B5WP4ly pic.twitter.com/Nrk81zyDUy— Decision Desk HQ (@DecisionDeskHQ) November 14, 2024 That outcome, if it holds, would give Republicans a 53-seat majority in the Senate. But it won’t be a certainty until the day before Thanksgiving.  Here are six things to know about the Pennsylvania recount.  1. What’s Happening With Undated or Improperly Dated Ballots? The key question in the recount for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania is what votes are subject to the recount.  In a win Thursday for the Casey campaign, Bucks County voted to count ballots that weren’t dated or were improperly dated under state law.  ???#BucksCounty Democrat Commissioners violate the rule of law and ignore PA Supreme Court ruling!Democrat Commissioners Diane Marseglia and Bob Harvie voted today to count illegal ballots, against PA Supreme Court ruling, in an attempt to aid former Senator Bob Casey.… pic.twitter.com/qAdFlVchmh— Bucks GOP (@BucksGOP) November 14, 2024 On Nov. 1, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that mail-in ballots must be dated to count in the Nov. 5 election. However, Democratic officials in some counties now are seeking to count undated or incorrectly dated ballots.  Without a date on a ballot, it’s not clear whether it was cast on or before Election Day. Arguing Thursday morning before the state Supreme Court, the Pennsylvania Republican Party opposed counting undated ballots.  “While Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dave McCormick currently holds an insurmountable lead of nearly 30,000 votes over his Democrat opponent Bob Casey, numerous County Boards of Elections including Philadelphia, Bucks, Centre, and potentially others took an impromptu vote to count undated or improperly dated mail-in ballots, in bold defiance of Pennsylvania law and two State Supreme Court orders,” the state’s Republican Party said Thursday in a post on the social media platform X.  The PA GOP is before the State Supreme Court this morning asking the Court to uphold the law. While Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dave McCormick currently holds an insurmountable lead of nearly 30,000 votes over his Democrat opponent Bob Casey, numerous County Boards of… pic.twitter.com/U0INM46Jtx— PA GOP (@PAGOP) November 14, 2024 The Republican National Committee joined the state Supreme Court argument and filed a separate lawsuit in Bucks County to halt the counting of undated and improperly dated ballots.  “Dave McCormick won this election and is already participating in Senate orientation meetings,” RNC Chairman Michael Whatley said Thursday in a public statement. “Meanwhile, Democrat officials and scam lawyers are aiding and abetting Bob Casey’s shameful attempts to steal back a Senate seat which he lost decisively.”  “The RNC is filing a motion in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to ensure that Pennsylvania’s democratic process is not undermined by the inclusion of illegal ballots in the final vote count,” Whatley said. “Pennsylvanians are ready to move forward with Dave McCormick representing them in the Senate as Bob Casey torches whatever legacy he had with these anti-democratic schemes.” Casey’s campaign manager, Tiernan Donohue, criticized the GOP lawsuits and claimed that a large number of votes could be tossed as a result. “David McCormick and his allies are trying to disenfranchise Pennsylvania voters with litigation designed to throw out large tranches of votes that they’ve admitted in legal filings could impact the outcome of the election,” Donohue said in a public statement. “Sen. Casey wants all Pennsylvanians’ voices to be heard as local county election officials continue to count votes. This democratic process must be allowed to play out to determine the result of this election.”  2. Will Unregistered Voters Count? The Casey campaign has challenged the dismissal of provisional ballots and mail-in ballots cast by voters whose names weren’t found on voter registration lists. Casey’s campaign sent a letter Wednesday to Lackawanna County Solicitor Donald Frederickson to challenge the county’s rejection of some provisional ballots and mail ballots. Lackawanna County includes Scranton, President Joe Biden’s much-mentioned hometown. The Casey campaign challenges the rejection of voters who were “not on the poll list on Election Day and were subsequently determined by the Board [of Elections] not to be registered,” the letter says. “We are asking the board to undertake several additional steps to confirm the voters’ eligibility.” The incumbent Democrat’s campaign “challenges the rejection of provisional ballots based solely on the board’s staff’s failure to find voters’ names on registered-voters lists,” the letter adds later.  “In fact, officials in York County recently discovered that 13% of ballots rejected as ‘not registered’ were done so in error.”  McCormick campaign manager Matt Gruda posted on X that this was “proof” the Casey campaign wants to count illegal votes.  PROOF: @Bob_Casey submits letter memorializing their ILLEGAL challenges to allow ballots from UNREGISTERED voters. Casey and his team have lots of explaining to do. pic.twitter.com/ejRkP67nbh— Matt Gruda (@Matt_Gruda) November 13, 2024 Ari Fleisher, first press secretary for President George W. Bush, posted on X:  “Casey’s case for a recount comes down to him trying to convince a court that people who aren’t registered should be allowed to vote. Keep your eyes on this, folks.  This is how D lawyers do it. Good thing Dave’s lead is too big to rig.” Great. Just great. Casey’s case for a recount comes down to him trying to convince a court that people who aren’t registered should be allowed to vote. Keep your eyes on this, folks. This is how D lawyers do it. Good thing Dave’s lead is too big to rig. https://t.co/ZeSUWRLNKr— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) November 13, 2024 The Daily Signal contacted the Casey campaign about the push to count the votes of unregistered voters. A spokesperson didn’t respond by publication time.  In a video statement Wednesday, Casey said, “The American democratic process was born in Pennsylvania and that process will play out.” Across our Commonwealth, close to 7 million people cast their votes in a free and fair election.The American democratic process was born in Pennsylvania and that process will play out. pic.twitter.com/R2RirIa09j— Bob Casey Jr. (@Bob_Casey) November 12, 2024 3. What Assurances Did Pennsylvania Voters Have Pre-Election? After the election, the Casey campaign accused opponents of large-scale voter disenfranchisement. But before Election Day, Democrats mostly assured the public of a clean and honest election.  Shapiro, the Democrat governor, dismissed concerns about potential irregularities in a Fox News interview that aired in late October.  “I think everybody needs to take a deep breath and understand that it is our fellow Pennsylvanians who are running these elections, and we will, again, have a free and fair, safe and secure election,” Shapiro said. Shapiro was on Harris’ short list of possible running mates before she opted for Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.  “Pennsylvania’s Nov. 5 election will be free, fair, safe and secure,” Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt, a registered Republican appointed by Shapiro, said a day before the election. Before the election, Schmidt also  told The New Yorker: “We’re in an environment where anything could be interpreted as being intentional and malicious and seeking to alter the outcome of the election.”  4. How Costly and How Necessary Is the Recount? The recount of the Senate election in Pennsylvania will cost taxpayers over $1 million, according to Schmidt’s office.  Schmidt announced Wednesday that the Senate race between Casey and McCormick was close enough to trigger an automatic recount.  Secretary Schmidt announced today that unofficial results in the Nov. 5 general election race for U.S. Senate have triggered a legally required statewide recount. Read more: https://t.co/qzeXC8SWgD pic.twitter.com/xyasNtNm0y— PA Department of State (@PAStateDept) November 13, 2024 The current vote tally shows McCormick with 3,380,310 votes, or 48.93% of the total, to Casey’s 3,350,972 votes, or 48.5%.  Since the difference between the two totals is within one-half of one percentage point, the margin triggers a recount under state law.  5. When Will We Know the Outcome? The Pennsylvania counties involved are required to start recounting votes in the Senate race no later than Nov. 20 and must complete their recounts by Nov. 26 at noon.  The counties must report results to the secretary of state’s office by noon on Nov. 27. By this point, an official winner should be clear. 6. How Frequent Are Recounts in Pennsylvania? This is the eighth time an automatic recount has been triggered in the state since legislation known as Act 97 was passed in 2004, according to the secretary of state’s office.  Interestingly, the last time a recount happened was in 2022, when Mehmet Oz narrowly beat McCormick in a Republican primary for Senate. That statewide GOP recount cost $1 million.  In the general election that followed, Oz lost to Democrat John Fetterman.  This turn of fortune’s wheel prompted Casey supporters to troll McCormick about it on X.  One post on X asks: “In 2022, Dave McCormick wanted every vote to be counted. What changed? Now he’s trying to silence voters prematurely. We won’t let him get away with it! Every vote must be counted.” In 2022, Dave McCormick wanted every vote to be counted. What changed? Now he's trying to silence voters prematurely. We won't let him get away with it! Every vote must be counted. #PennsylvaniaNotForSale#DemsUnited pic.twitter.com/NPlE0htjoP— Justice Seeker ? ?? ~ Keep moving forward (@tizzywoman) November 13, 2024 Another post asserts that “McCormick is trying to silence Pennsylvanians & claim victory prematurely. Not gonna happen. Every vote must be counted.” BREAKING: With over 100,000 votes still to be counted, Dave McCormick is trying to silence Pennsylvanians & claim victory prematurely. Not gonna happen.Every vote must be counted. #PennsylvaniaNotForSale pic.twitter.com/OxmrMt7vxM— Red2Blue (@Red2Blue_org) November 13, 2024 Other recent examples of recounts also came with a big price tag. A recount of a 2021 judicial race for Commonwealth Court cost taxpayers $1.1 million, according to the secretary of state’s office.  A 2011 recount in a primary for another Commonwealth Court judgeship cost $525,000. In 2009, taxpayers paid $541,698 for a recount of a general election for Superior Court.  The post Undated Ballots and Unregistered Voters? What’s Behind Recount in Pennsylvania Senate Race  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Conservatives know that when the American Left wants us to “have a conversation” about an issue, it means they get to talk incessantly until we agree with them. To progressives, there is one, approved view on a given issue and all others are atavistic throwbacks to an era before “progress.” Observe that humans (and all mammals) come in two sexes, and you are a “transphobe.” Suggest it is unfair for males to compete against females in sports and unsafe for men to share prison cells with women, and it is “hate speech.” Declare that America is about equal opportunity, not equal outcomes, and uphold merit over race- and sex-based discrimination, and you are racist and misogynistic. Argue against mass illegal immigration, and you are xenophobic at best, racist at worst. The Washington Post recently printed an opinion piece by David Bier of the Cato Institute. Bier and I have appeared together several times on panel discussions, so I know his views. Bier is a libertarian. He believes that immigration should be constrained only by supply and demand, not limited by the government. Where there is a willing employer and a willing employee, he argues, who are we to interfere? To support this view, Bier also argues that immigrants are net contributors to the U.S. economy and that they commit less crime.   My view—shaped by a career serving as a diplomat overseas in developing countries—is that worldwide demand for the American lifestyle exceeds any possible supply, so we need numerical and other limits. It is Congress’ prerogative to set those parameters in law. And it is the president’s constitutional duty to enforce these laws, not ignore them or circumvent them by executive fiat. Bier and I do agree on a few things; first, that open borders cannot long coexist with a welfare state that provides any newcomer with free health care, education, housing, and income. Second, we agree that whatever the limits, criminal aliens should be kept out and removed. Bier is not a leftist, but he agrees with them on immigration, so his argument is acceptable to The Washington Post. My view—opposing mass illegal migration—never darkens the publication’s pages (its choice, not mine). If The Post really wanted to have a “conversation” instead of a weekly lecture to the echo chamber of its readership, I would make the following counterpoints. First, it is often said by the Left that “studies show” immigrants commit less crime than natives. The main rebuttal here is that unlike crimes by Americans or legal residents, any crime committed by an illegal alien is preventable. But there is also other research to show that, in fact, illegal immigrants offend at higher rates than legal immigrants or natives. When the Left cites its figures, it says “immigrants” and deliberately lumps both legal and illegal immigrants together when the real issue being discussed is primarily about illegal immigrants. It is by no means proven that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than those who legally reside in the United States. Research on the subject is limited by bias and poor data. The City Journal recently reported that we’re not just “imagining a migrant crime spree” with issues from drug trafficking to shoplifting—linked to the Biden-era migrant surge—on the rise in even remote parts of the country. Second, as to whether immigration is an economic benefit to the country, I’d point out that illegal immigrants are overall lower skilled than U.S. born workers, with only 30% educated beyond high school. Of U.S. households headed by illegal immigrants, 59% use at least one welfare program. Over a lifetime, the average illegal immigrant takes an estimated $68,000 more in benefits than he puts in. Daniel Di Martino of the Manhattan Institute estimates that the millions of illegal and paroled immigrants who entered under the Biden administration will cost taxpayers an estimated $1.15 trillion over their lifetimes. While young, educated immigrants reduce the U.S. budget deficit, “those without a college education and all those who immigrate to the U.S. after age 55 are universally a net fiscal burden by up to $400,000” each over their lifetimes. The immigration of low-skilled workers also reduces the wages of many U.S.-born workers. Heritage Foundation economist EJ Antoni writes that between 4.9 million and 7.3 million employable Americans left the labor market during COVID-19 and haven’t returned. Meanwhile, “all the net job growth over the last year went to foreign-born workers” while “native-born Americans lost over 900,000 jobs.” Harvard economist George Borjas wrote in 2016 that “decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment … especially for African American and Latino workers.” He says that “immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program,” concluding that “the total wealth redistribution from the native losers [lower-skilled employees] to the native winners [employers and stockholders] is … roughly a half-trillion dollars a year.” These are just financial costs. I could also discuss the social costs to towns like Charleroi, Pennsylvania; Lockland, Ohio; and Logansport, Indiana, where schools, housing, police, and other services faced a sudden influx of needy migrants thanks to federal policies these communities had no say in. But The Post, like the other legacy papers that are losing market share along with the trust of the American people, doesn’t really want to have a “conversation” on this. Its mind’s made up. The Washington Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, chose not to endorse Kamala Harris for president in the recent election—to the outrage of practically his entire staff and about 250,000 subscribers who canceled their subscriptions. I canceled my print copy long ago but might re-up if the paper makes some effort to restore balance to its coverage. Bezos has reportedly been urged to hire a few conservative opinion writers to add perspective. Other leftist media outlets are also looking to add actual conservatives to help their readers and viewers understand what more than half the country thinks. So, Jeff, sign me up. I promise to deliver 800 words a week for half what you pay token conservative Jennifer Rubin to reliably fawn on Joe Biden and Harris, and vilify Donald Trump. I’ll go down into the bunker where we conservatives live, confer with rest of the “garbage” gang as we eat My Patriot Supply emergency-preparedness meals and chug Black Rifle Coffee, then tell your readers what “deplorables” think about the issues. But I fear the legacy media’s ship has sailed. Abandoned by conservatives, such media outlets are now losing leftists because they are not far-left enough. Anyone who studied the Chinese, French, or Russian Revolutions could have told them this day would come. Too bad for them they didn’t have a clue. The BorderLine is a weekly Daily Signal feature examining everything from the unprecedented illegal immigration crisis at the border to immigration’s impact on cities and states throughout the land. We will also shed light on other critical border-related issues such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorism, and more. Read Other BorderLine Columns: The Mass Hysteria Over Deportation What Would Harris and Trump Do Differently on Immigration? My Job Was Getting Countries to Take Back Their Criminal Illegal Aliens. Under Biden-Harris, I’d Be Unemployed Biden Administration Gives Panama ‘Jack’ to Help Control Border What I Saw on My Visit to Springfield, Ohio The post The Truth About Immigration the Left Chooses to Ignore: The BorderLine appeared first on The Daily Signal.