Tom Phelan retweeted
Les gens m'ont dit que j'avais droit à un droit de réponse dans Le Monde, voire que je devrais porter plainte. J'ai autre chose à faire. Je vais répondre ici. J'ai fait un milliard de vues en sept mois sur ce réseau, et ce texte sera sans doute lu par bien plus de monde que l'article lui-même. Comme dit Elon : you are the media now. Donc voici mon droit de réponse, et l'affaire sera close.
L'article est signé Aurélien Defer. Il est aussi passé cette année par le pôle Enquêtes de StreetPress, où il pige encore. StreetPress, pour ceux qui ne connaissent pas, c'est un média qui appelle ses lecteurs à l'aider à « gagner la bataille culturelle contre l'extrême droite ». Ce n'est pas moi qui le dis, c'est écrit sur leur propre page de dons. Plus d'un tiers de son budget vient de subventions publiques et de fondations. Il a touché de l'argent du ministère de la Culture au titre de l'aide au pluralisme, et de l'Open Society de George Soros. Un média militant, financé en partie par vos impôts, dont la mission affichée est de combattre un camp politique. C'est de cette école-là que vient le journaliste qui me colle l'étiquette d'extrême droite.
Pour moi, ces médias-là ne sont rien d'autre que des officines d'extrême gauche sous perfusion de subventions, qui mentent au peuple sur à peu près tous les sujets.
Avant la publication, j'ai passé vingt minutes au téléphone avec lui. J'ai été cordial, transparent, je n'ai esquivé aucune question. Il m'a demandé : « Êtes-vous libertarien ? » J'ai répondu oui, sans détour, parce que c'est ma ligne et que je n'ai rien à cacher.
Je lui ai expliqué ce que ça veut dire. Le libertarianisme, c'est l'idéal d'une société où les individus coopèrent librement, par l'échange et le contrat, sans qu'une autorité centrale ait à tout organiser pour eux. Aujourd'hui, c'est une utopie, je le dis moi-même. Mais je pense que des sociétés suffisamment civilisées finiront par y arriver : des individus capables de se coordonner entre eux, sans tuteur. On y viendra un jour. Probablement sur Mars.
Puis je lui ai donné la version pragmatique. Dans le monde réel, je suis libéral. Je pense que moins d'État produit plus de prospérité. Il suffit de regarder l'Argentine : quand Milei arrive au pouvoir, l'inflation dépasse 200 % par an. Elle tourne aujourd'hui autour de 33 %. Le redressement est en cours, et il est spectaculaire.
Je lui ai surtout expliqué ma méthode. Je regarde les systèmes qui marchent et ceux qui ne marchent pas, et j'essaie de ne pas céder à l'idéologie émotionnelle. Je suis venu à l'économie par l'entrepreneuriat, et l'entrepreneuriat vous apprend une chose très vite : l'économie, ce sont des échanges entre individus. Pas des plans, pas des slogans. Des gens qui créent de la valeur les uns pour les autres.
Quand on s'intéresse sérieusement à l'économie, on lit Marx. Puis on découvre que sa théorie de la valeur a été démontée par la révolution marginaliste il y a 150 ans. Alors on continue, on lit les autres. Et on finit par arriver à l'école autrichienne, qui est pour moi la plus lucide de toutes : aucun individu, aucun comité, aucun ministère ne peut prévoir ni piloter un système aussi complexe qu'une économie. C'est peut-être pour ça qu'elle est si peu enseignée en France. Elle oblige à admettre qu'on ne contrôle pas tout.
Ma ligne, la voici donc, en entier. Pro-humain. Pro-liberté. Pro-respect de la loi, la même pour tous. Et un rejet total du wokisme, que je considère comme une forme de racisme : celui qui juge les gens sur leur couleur avant leurs actes, et qui attend moins d'eux à cause de leurs origines.
Vingt minutes d'échange honnête. Et le résultat, c'est une étiquette : « narratif xénophobe ».
Alors posons la question franchement. Où est la xénophobie ? Où est le racisme ? Chez celui qui demande que la loi s'applique à tout le monde de la même façon ? Ou chez ceux qui trient les citoyens par origine, qui excusent ici et accusent là, et qui laissent des communautés entières porter la honte de quelques délinquants qu'on refuse de sanctionner ?
Cet article est malhonnête, et c'est précisément pour ça que de moins en moins de gens font confiance à ce genre de papiers. Au lieu de se demander si, après des décennies, leur grille de lecture ne s'est pas trompée, si elle n'a pas surtout produit du chaos et de la casse, certains préfèrent coller des étiquettes à ceux qui posent des questions.
Un dernier mot. Je suis le petit-fils de paysans bretons. Personne ne m'a ouvert de portes. J'ai appris à coder seul à 12 ans, j'ai monté les échelons un par un. J'ai fini par lever des fonds. J'ai fini par recruter. Aujourd'hui, j'embauche des diplômés des meilleures écoles, moi qui n'en ai fait aucune. J'échange avec l'homme le plus riche du monde, et à mes yeux le plus grand entrepreneur de tous les temps, Elon Musk. Mes analyses sont relayées par Javier Milei, à mes yeux le meilleur président du monde en matière d'économie.
M. Defer aurait pu se demander comment quelqu'un parti de rien arrive jusque-là. Il a préféré coller des étiquettes : xénophobe, extrême droite. C'est le panier de crabes français dans toute sa splendeur. Quand quelqu'un grimpe, on ne cherche pas à comprendre comment. On tire vers le bas.
Et quand on prétend parler au nom du peuple, on devrait au moins prendre la peine d'écouter quelqu'un qui en vient, quand il vous parle vingt minutes au téléphone.
Je lui souhaite bien du courage pour la suite. Aujourd'hui, six Français sur dix se méfient déjà des médias. Avec des articles comme celui-là, on approchera bientôt des 99 %. Puis des 100 %.
Je n'ai rien caché de ma ligne. Je l'ai expliquée calmement. Il suffisait de l'écrire.
Article dans Le Monde où j’apprends qu’avec Thaïs d’Escufon et Alice Cordier, je propage un « narratif xénophobe ».
Bon. Je vais sans doute aller m'acheter des bottes et un manteau en cuir.
Résumons l'acte d'accusation : j'écris en anglais (crime), j'ai été interviewé par un podcasteur américain (crime), 40 % de mes abonnés sont américains (crime), Elon Musk me republie parfois (crime aggravé), j'ai gagné 40 000 abonnés en deux semaines et X me rémunère (circonstance aggravante : le capitalisme). Et surtout, j'ai osé dire que cinquante ans de politique socialiste finissent par produire du chaos. Le Monde appelle ça de l'extrême droite. Moi j'appelle ça une observation.
Petit rappel historique. L'« extrême droite » qu'on agite en France depuis vingt ans est en grande partie une construction de la gauche. Ce n'est pas moi qui le dis, c'est Lionel Jospin, en 2007 : pendant toutes les années Mitterrand, il n'y a jamais eu de menace fasciste, et « tout antifascisme n'était que du théâtre ». Du théâtre. Dit par un Premier ministre socialiste. Le Monde rejoue la même pièce, avec moins de talent.
Le narratif que je propose, le voici, en entier : des villes propres. Des villes safe. Pas de chaos. Une mairie qui ne brûle pas à Limoges. Des commerçants qui ne se font pas piller. Si c'est ça être xénophobe, alors l'immense majorité des Français l'est, y compris la plupart des Français issus de l'immigration.
Je le redis clairement : je condamne toute forme de racisme basé sur la race. Ce que je condamne, c'est l'incapacité à punir des gens qui se comportent mal sous prétexte qu'ils viendraient d'une minorité. Ce n'est pas du tout la même chose.
Et c'est là qu'il faut poser la vraie question : où est le vrai racisme ?
Quand on refuse de sanctionner un délinquant parce qu'il appartient à une communauté, on ne protège pas cette communauté. On fait exactement l'inverse. On dit implicitement que ses membres ne sont pas capables de respecter la loi, qu'on ne peut pas attendre d'eux la même chose que des autres. C'est le racisme des attentes basses. Et en laissant une petite minorité agir dans l'impunité, on laisse ses actes rejaillir sur tous les autres : l'infirmière, le chauffeur, l'ingénieur, le commerçant qui ont exactement les mêmes origines et qui n'ont rien demandé. L'impunité individuelle fabrique la culpabilité collective. L'antiracisme d'aujourd'hui, celui qui excuse au lieu de punir, finit par condamner une communauté entière pour les actes de quelques-uns. Le racisme, il est là. Pas dans le fait de vouloir appliquer la même loi à tout le monde.
La justice, c'est individuel. Tu casses, tu paies. Peu importe ton nom, ta couleur ou ton quartier.
C'est d'ailleurs pour ça que quand vous vous baladez au Maroc, beaucoup de Marocains vous disent la même chose : « Mais pourquoi vous êtes aussi gentils avec les délinquants marocains qui ont grandi en France ? » Eux ne se sentent pas visés quand on parle d'ordre. Ils se sentent salis quand des voyous abîment leur image à l'étranger et que personne ne les arrête.
Donc non, je ne propage pas un narratif xénophobe. Je propose un truc assez révolutionnaire : que la loi s'applique à tout le monde de la même façon.
Bon, je vous laisse, je dois aller essayer mes bottes.
Tom Phelan retweeted
My dear American friends, I've shown you where the disease came from and who sells it. Now I want you to look at this email.
January 5, 2020, 2:44 in the morning. Peter Thiel writes to Mark Zuckerberg, Nick Clegg, Sheryl Sandberg and Marc Andreessen. It became public years later, in a lawsuit between the state of Tennessee and Meta. The subject line is one word: Millennials.
Thiel starts from a number: 70% of Millennials say they are pro-socialist.
Read that again. Seven out of ten young adults in the richest, freest, most innovative country in human history say they want the system that ruined every country that tried it.
And Thiel, one of the sharpest minds in Silicon Valley, says something important. Don't just dismiss them as stupid or brainwashed. Understand why. His answer: when you're crushed by student debt and housing is unaffordable, you have no capital and no way to build any. And if you have no stake in capitalism, you turn against it.
He's right. But follow the thread one step further, because that's where it gets interesting.
Who made college unaffordable? Washington flooded universities with easy federal loans, and universities raised their prices year after year, because they could. The same universities that then taught those students, for four years, that capitalism is the problem.
Who made housing unaffordable? Zoning rules, permits, environmental reviews, endless regulation that makes it nearly illegal to build. Remember Piketty's famous rise of capital? It was mostly housing. Scarcity created by the state.
So here's the full picture. The state creates the scarcity. The universities teach that capitalism caused it. The politicians sell socialism as the cure. The arsonist is selling fire insurance.
That's why 70% is not a natural opinion. No generation wakes up one morning wanting central planning. It takes decades of teaching, a captured culture, and an economy rigged to give young people no stake in it. In a healthy country, that number would trigger a serious public investigation into what American universities have been teaching for fifty years. This is not a debate. It's the result of a long, patient operation, exactly the war of position Gramsci described from his prison cell.
Now let me tell you what history says happens when an ideology captures a generation and turns it against everything that came before.
China, 1966. Mao unleashes the Cultural Revolution and hands it to the youth. Students become Red Guards. Their mission: destroy the "Four Olds," old customs, old culture, old habits, old ideas. Temples, books, art, centuries of history, smashed.
In August 1966, at a girls' school in Beijing, students beat their vice principal, Bian Zhongyun, to death. She was one of the first. Teachers across the country were humiliated, tortured, killed by the children they had taught.
In 1970, a 16-year-old boy named Zhang Hongbing denounced his own mother for criticizing Mao. She was executed. He spent the rest of his life trying to apologize for it.
Children were taught that loyalty to the Party came before loyalty to their parents. Historians estimate the Cultural Revolution killed somewhere between hundreds of thousands and millions of people.
The Soviet Union did it first. It turned a boy named Pavlik Morozov into a national hero for denouncing his father. Generations of Soviet children were raised on his story.
Cambodia, 1975. The Khmer Rouge declare Year Zero. Teenagers with rifles empty the cities. Wearing glasses was enough to mark you as an intellectual. In four years, roughly a quarter of the population was dead.
Every time, the same pattern. Take the young. Teach them that the past is guilty. Teach them that their parents, their teachers, their history are the enemy. Then give them power.
So when you see statues pulled down, words banned, books rewritten, and parents treated as obstacles in their own children's schools, understand what you're looking at. It's not the end of the story. It's the opening act. It always starts with the young, and it always starts with good intentions.
If the West ever gets its Marxist youth revolution, it won't end in Scandinavia. It will end the way it has ended every single time it was tried for real. And we will have learned nothing.
Thiel saw the number. I'm telling you where it leads.
The answer is not to hate the young. It's to give them back a stake in the system. Let them build. Let them buy a home. Make college worth its price or skip it. Let them start companies instead of drowning in debt. A generation that owns something defends it. A generation that owns nothing will burn it down.
I come from your future. Don't let your children write the next chapter of this story.
My dear American friends, today I'm going to take apart the two most successful salesmen of economic snake oil of our time: Thomas Piketty and Gabriel Zucman.
If you read my last post, you know where this comes from. Gramsci told his heirs not to storm the palace but to capture the institutions: schools, universities, media, culture. I showed you how France became the laboratory. Today I want to show you the field where that strategy worked best of all. Economics.
Here's why. In physics, if your theory is wrong, the bridge falls down. In engineering, the rocket explodes. Reality grades your work. In the social sciences, reality grades slowly, and nobody loses their job when the prediction fails. You pick your data, you pick your assumptions, you build a model, and the conclusion you wanted at the start comes out at the end with a lot of equations attached. That's the perfect terrain for a war of position. You don't need to be right. You need to be cited.
Meet the two generals.
Thomas Piketty wrote Capital in the Twenty-First Century. It sold millions of copies and became the most celebrated economics book of the decade. Gabriel Zucman, his former student, wrote The Triumph of Injustice with Emmanuel Saez and helped design the wealth taxes that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders campaigned on. This is not a French problem. Their ideas are already inside your Democratic Party.
Now let's go through their theses one by one.
Thesis one: "r > g." Piketty's famous formula says the return on capital grows faster than the economy, so wealth inevitably concentrates in the hands of a few dynasties, and capitalism slides back to the aristocracy of the 19th century.
Look at the list of the richest Americans today. Elon Musk. Jeff Bezos. Jensen Huang. Mark Zuckerberg. Larry Page. First-generation builders. Not heirs. Most of the names on the first Forbes 400 list in 1982 have since fallen off it. Fortunes don't compound forever. They get split between children, spent, mismanaged, and overtaken by people who build something new. And when an MIT graduate student, Matthew Rognlie, looked closely at Piketty's own numbers, he found that the rise in capital's share of income came almost entirely from housing. Not factories. Not shareholders. Real estate, which is a story about building restrictions, not about capitalism. The law of history turned out to be a law of zoning.
Thesis two: "Inequality in America has exploded." Piketty, Saez and Zucman built the charts every journalist uses. Top 1% capturing everything, the middle class crushed.
Then two economists at the US Treasury and the Joint Committee on Taxation, Gerald Auten and David Splinter, redid the work. They counted what the famous charts left out or treated differently: taxes paid, government transfers, retirement income, changes in how people file. Their result: after taxes and transfers, the top 1%'s share of income has barely moved since the 1960s. Same country, same tax data, a completely different story. The difference isn't reality. It's the assumptions. And Piketty's data was already in trouble in 2014, when the Financial Times published an investigation pointing out errors and unexplained adjustments in his spreadsheets.
Thesis three: "Billionaires pay a lower tax rate than the working class." This was the headline of Saez and Zucman's book, and it went viral. The 400 richest Americans supposedly paid less than the bottom half.
To get there, they made choices that critics across the spectrum, including Larry Summers, Obama's own former Treasury Secretary, challenged: how corporate taxes are assigned, how refundable credits that put money into lower-income households' pockets are counted. Meanwhile, the IRS's own numbers say the top 1% of earners pay more than 40% of all federal income taxes. A viral claim is not a fact. It's a campaign slogan with footnotes.
Thesis four: "A small wealth tax on the ultra-rich will fund everything." In France, Zucman's proposal became the left's flagship measure: a 2% minimum tax every year on fortunes over €100 million.
Here's what they never explain. The fortunes of builders are not piles of cash. They are shares in the companies they built. Imagine a founder whose startup is valued at a billion euros but doesn't make a profit yet. To pay a 2% tax on paper wealth, every year, he has to sell pieces of his company. Year after year, he loses control, and the buyers are usually foreign funds. Congratulations, you just exported your best companies.
And we know what happens next, because it already happened. In 1990, twelve OECD countries had a wealth tax. By 2017, only four did. Nearly all of them repealed it, because it raised little and chased away capital. Norway raised its wealth tax in 2022 and dozens of its richest people moved to Switzerland. France ran the experiment for decades before abolishing most of its wealth tax in 2018. Their policy has been tested. It failed every time.
Thesis five: and here they stop pretending. In his next book, Capital and Ideology, Piketty proposes what he openly calls "participatory socialism." Taxes on the largest fortunes up to 90%. Property that is no longer permanent, but "temporary," returned to the collective at regular intervals. He's not hiding anything. The goal isn't to fix capitalism. It's to end private ownership of anything big enough to matter.
So why are they celebrated? Why do they have the prizes, the chairs, the front pages, the invitations to Davos? Zucman even won the John Bates Clark Medal in 2023, one of the most prestigious awards in economics.
That's not a refutation of what I'm telling you. That's the proof of it. That's what it looks like when Gramsci's long march reaches the economics departments. The institutions give each other medals, the media quote the medals, and the politicians quote the media. Nobody ever checks whether the predictions came true.
So stop calling them neutral economists. They are activists with PhDs. Their work starts from a conclusion, that private wealth is illegitimate, and builds the data to justify it.
And understand where that conclusion leads. I'm not saying Piketty or Zucman want camps. I'm saying every regime that tried to abolish large private property ended in poverty, and the worst of them ended in prisons and mass graves. The intellectuals who cheered Lenin didn't want gulags either. Many of them ended up in one. Good intentions have never been a firewall.
Next time someone quotes Piketty or Zucman at you, don't get angry. Ask questions. Who are the richest people today, heirs or builders? Why did almost every country that tried a wealth tax repeal it? Why do two teams using the same tax data reach opposite conclusions? What does Piketty mean by temporary property?
You don't need to win the argument. You just need to make them check.
I come from your future. We gave these men our universities, our newspapers and our budget debates. Don't give them yours.
Tom Phelan retweeted
Chicago lost the Bears this week. A team that's been in the city since 1921.
They didn't lose them to a bigger market or a better deal. The Bears decided they'd rather be a tenant in Indiana than deal with Illinois for one more year.
Think about how badly you have to run a place for that to be the smart move.
They lost them for two reasons.
The people running Illinois would rather villainize a builder than keep one. And they're bad at their jobs.
In 2021 the Bears spent $197M on the old Arlington Park racetrack.
Before they could break ground, Cook County valued the empty lot at $192M (Bears said $60M). They were salivating at the chance to extort a building that didn't even exist yet.
That fight dragged on for years.
The Bears were ready to put $2B into the stadium. All they wanted was a promise the county wouldn't reassess them into oblivion, plus $855M for infrastructure everyone uses. Roads, transit, utilities. A $3B project, two thirds of it private money pouring into Illinois.
Springfield had since 2021 to get this done. They dragged it to the final night of session, passed it through the Senate at 3:39AM, and the House went home without voting.
So now it's all gone.
The funniest part? This started because Cook County tried to grab the tax early. They knew a built stadium would pay $53M a year. Now they get under $4M on a vacant lot. No jobs, no buildout, no new anything.
Congrats on fighting for scraps and losing the whole prize.
Pritzker: they're "an $8.5B valued business" that doesn't need propping up.
But be smart for a second. Almost every NFL city throws in public money for a stadium. Not charity. The return is real. Tourism, hotels, restaurants, jobs, game days, property tax on a huge development. The math works.
Indiana did the math. While Illinois sat on it for years, Indiana passed a bill in months, put up $1B, and took the team.
And the Bears took a worse deal to get there. In Illinois they were going to own their stadium. In Indiana they rent it from the state. A team that wanted to build its own home gave up ownership just to escape Chicago.
Nobody won but Indiana. The Bears lost their stadium. Illinois lost the team, the $2B, and $53M a year in taxes.
Pritzker after they left: "I wasn't willing to give up billions of dollars of taxpayer money to give it to a billionaire-owned family or team."
There it is. "Billionaire-owned."
That's how Democrats talk about any business right before they run it out of town. Call them a billionaire, act like you're saving working families, take a victory lap while the tax base drives across the state line.
Meanwhile they're running the whole state into the ground. And you already know how this ends. You're living in it.
Pensions are $143B in the hole, worst in the country and not close. You pay $6,285 a year in property taxes, double the $2,969 national average, for a city that's $1.15B in the red. The mayor called its finances "the point of no return."
When you run things this badly, you sell what's left.
They leased the parking meters for 75 years to Morgan Stanley and a sovereign wealth fund in Abu Dhabi. Took $1.15B and burned through it in two years. The investors already made it all back, with 58 years left to collect.
Sold the Skyway. Sold the downtown garages. Every asset that made money, gone for one check.
But a fixed property tax rate for a team that's been here 106 years? That's "propping up billionaires."
Companies are leaving. Boeing for Virginia. Caterpillar for Texas. Citadel for Miami. In 2023 alone Illinois lost 56,000 people and $6B in income to other states. The ones who left earned a third more than the ones who moved in.
Indiana didn't outbid anyone. AAA credit, 16 years straight. A $676M surplus. Fourth-lowest debt per person in the country. They just weren't a disaster.
Illinois could have collected $53M a year. It chose zero. Ignore all the bad management but make sure to stick it to those evil, pesky billionaires.
Tom Phelan retweeted
I am an Israeli intelligence operative assigned to the team that destroyed Thomas Massie.
Yes. It was us. Israel did it.
We inceptioned Thomas Massie to be the lone Republican "no" vote on the budget resolution. For Israel.
We inceptioned him to be the lone Republican "no" vote on the continuing resolution to keep the government funded. For Israel.
We inceptioned him to force every member of Congress to fly back to Washington during a pandemic to vote on COVID relief — a move so enraging that Trump called him a "third-rate grandstander" and demanded he be kicked out of the party. For Israel.
We inceptioned him to vote against sanctions on North Korea. The only member of the House. For Israel.
We inceptioned him to force a roll call vote on giving Jack Nicklaus a congressional gold medal. For Israel.
We inceptioned him to vote against the Stolen Valor Act. Three people voted no. He was one of them. For Israel.
We inceptioned him to be one of only two Republicans to vote against the One Big Beautiful Bill. For Israel.
Politico called him "Mr. No." That was our idea. For Israel.
Did it take years of meticulous planning to convince a libertarian MIT engineer who lives off the grid on a farm in Kentucky to oppose every single thing his party did regardless of what it was?
Yes. But that's what we do.
You figured us out, Thomas. We never thought you'd crack the code.
Tom Phelan retweeted
Our Corporation Counsel needs to immediately halt the use of any @KimFoxx certificates of innocence!
The fact she allowed these criminals to manipulate her in order to get a certificate of innocence that our @ChicagoCityLaw used to justified taxpayer-funded settlements.
If this isn’t a crime, it damn well should be.
Exclusive: Kim Foxx admitted under oath last month that she believed 2 exonerated men were actually guilty of a “heinous” double murder in Bucktown.
One man reached a big settlement with the city last week.
The other’s lawsuit goes to trial Monday.
cwbchicago.com/2026/05/under…
Tom Phelan retweeted
I want to tell you the story of a young woman who you have probably never heard of. Her name is Mary Anne. She was born on a remote island in Scotland, where life was harsh and unforgiving.
On May 2, 1930, when she was 18 years old, she got on a boat headed for Ellis Island to start a new life. She arrived here 11 days later.
She wasn't chasing fame, riches, or power. She came for the unique opportunity that America offered. Her sister was already here and had found a job as a maid. So, Mary Anne MacLeod joined her, listing her occupation as “domestic” on her Ellis Island immigration papers.
She came to America knowing that she would clean the houses and toilets of the wealthy families in New York. She and her sister lived and worked hard through the worst days of the Depression. And she persevered.
Six years later, she married a man named Fred. He was the son of German immigrants. Then In 1942, she became a citizen.
Mary and Fred would end up having five children: two daughters and three sons.
One of those sons, they named Donald.
A woman who came here as a maid, the lowest of jobs, would raise a son who would change the very skyline that greeted his mother when she arrived at Ellis Island.
After that, he would become the 45th and 47th President of the United States.
There is no other country in the world where a woman can arrive with nothing, and in ONE generation, her son would lead the entire world.
For America’s 250th anniversary, I wanted to present President Trump with this painting I did, and then I ran out of time and talent. So, I asked a good friend of mine, Mike Malm, to help me finish it. This is how I envisioned her coming into the United States.
Mary Anne MacLeod Trump should be a household name. Her story is everything that is great about America.
Tom Phelan retweeted
NYT: "You've been talking on your show about whether Trump is the Antichrist"
Tucker Carlson: "I have not said that"
NYT: You said, "Here's a leader mocking the Gods of his ancestors, mocking the God of Gods, and exalting himself above them. Could this be the Antichrist?"
TC: "I actually did not say 'could this be the Antichrist?'"
NYT: ***plays clip of him saying exactly that***
TC: "I don't know where that comes from, but I know those words never left my lips"
Tom Phelan retweeted
I told Senator Sheldon WhiteClub today that I won’t be listening to or caring about any of his lessons on morality knowing that he joined an all-white Rhode Island Country Club.
I’m also done with the likes of AOC, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the rest of the lying cabal that make stupid climate predictions, plunder tens of billions of tax dollars, enrich their well-connected allies, and are committed to strangulating out of existence entire sectors of our economy.
Climate alarmist AOC wants to be taken seriously while also insisting the world is imminently about to end due to climate change (Just under 5 years remain on her nutty Jan 2019 prediction that only 12 years of life are left on Earth).
Al Gore is now speaking publicly about his concern with global freezing after decades of grift talking about global warming. “Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro,” said Gore in 2006 (There’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round). Gore also predicted in 2009 ice-free Arctic summers within 5-7 years.
John Kerry warned in 2009 that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013.
These people are dishonest, power-hungry hacks.
The GREEN NEW SCAM is DEAD!!!
Tom Phelan retweeted
Electronic monitoring is not appropriate for violent individuals who pose a risk to public safety. It does not keep people safe.
The consequences are dire.
We mourn the loss of Officer John Bartholomew and pray his partner will recover. This tragedy should never have happened.
Tom Phelan retweeted
Listen to @RaymondALopez perfectly explain the worldview of Cook County judges.
Criminals are sympathetic figures.
Law-abiding citizens are left to fend for themselves.
It's open season on Chicago Police.
Tom Phelan retweeted
Eileen O'Neill Burke today after a Chicago cop was killed by a man on EM with four pending violent felonies:
"Electronic Monitoring system is broken. It does not work. It does not keep people safe."
SA O'Neill Burke gets it. This is why crime has dropped 22 percent in Chicago. Until the EM program is dismantled and progressives are removed from the bench, residents of Chicago will continue to be at the mercy of violent criminals.
Tom Phelan retweeted
How would you feel if I interviewed your husband and accused him of being a coke snorting philandering embezzler (all true by the way)? Would you defend me, a female? Or your shitheel husband?
Tom Phelan retweeted
You can travel to Italy, but you’ll never be an Italian.
You can travel to France but you’ll never be a Frenchman.
You can live in Germany but you’ll never be a German.
You can pack your bags and live the rest of your life in China or Japan, but you’ll never be Chinese or Japanese.
Yet you can come from any one of those countries to the United States of America, and you can still be an American – so long as you work hard, you play by the rules, you make your contributions, wait your turn, pledge allegiance to the flag, and obtain your citizenship.
Tom Phelan retweeted
Look, I get it, Dems.
You think buying Greenland is dumb.
You think trash-talking NATO is dumb.
You think Hegseth firing generals is dumb.
You think bombing Iran is dumb.
Fine. Maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re wrong. I’ll buy you a beer and we can argue about it.
But that’s not the point.
Every administration in American history has done dumb things.
Jefferson had an embargo that tanked his own economy.
LBJ had Vietnam.
Carter sold the Panama Canal for $1.
W. had “Mission Accomplished.”
Obama had…. where do I even begin?
Dumb is bipartisan. Dumb is American. Dumb is fine. DC runs on dumb decisions.
What NONE of them ever did, what is truly, mind-melting, pants-on-head, clown-car-fire, galaxy-brained, lead-paint-chip-eating, 50-IQ-Neanderthal-ripping-a-bong dumb, was pay NGOs by the busload to smuggle tens of millions of people, including actual convicted criminals, across a border we spent trillions pretending to defend, then hand them free four-star hotels, free cell phones, free ATM cards, and a court date in 2031 they were never going to show up for.
That is not a policy. That is a SNL cold open someone forgot to write a punchline for.
A five-year-old with a juice box could tell you that was Bozo-the-Clown-on-crack, Weekend-at-Bernie’s-running-DHS, “hold-my-beer-I’m-gonna-try-something” levels of stupid. My golden retriever could have run a tighter border. A Magic 8-Ball would have outperformed the entire Biden interagency.
That’s the new threshold, Democrats.
That’s the low-water mark. That’s the floor. That is the Mariana Trench of public policy and you personally rented the Titan submersible.
Argue all you want about the Strait of Hormuz. Write your op-eds. Go on cable TV with Tom Nichols. Clutch your pearls about Greenland.
But until Trump proposes something even half as mind-bendingly, bone-crushingly, civilization-forfeitingly brain-dead as what Biden and Kamala did with our borders, I genuinely do not care.
Zero F’s given by me.
Tom Phelan retweeted
Food for thought.
Trump, Hormuz and the End of the Free Ride
For half a century, Western strategists have known that the Strait of Hormuz is the acute point where energy, sea power and political will intersect. That knowledge is not in dispute. What is new in this war with Iran is that the United States, under Donald Trump, has chosen not to rush to “solve” the problem. In Hegelian terms, he is refusing an easy synthesis in order to force the underlying contradiction to the surface.
The old thesis was simple: the US guarantees open sea lanes in the Gulf, and everyone else structures their economies and politics around that free insurance. Europe and the UK embraced ambitious green policies, ran down hard‑power capabilities and lectured Washington on multilateral virtue, secure in the assumption that American carriers would always appear off Hormuz. The political class behaved as if the American security guarantee were a law of nature, not a contingent choice. Their conduct today is closer to Chamberlain than Churchill: temporising, issuing statements, hoping the storm will pass without a fundamental reordering of their responsibilities.
Trump’s antithesis is to withhold the automatic guarantee at the moment of maximum stress. Militarily, the US can break Iran’s residual ability to contest the Strait; that is not the binding constraint. The point is to delay that act. By allowing a closure or semi‑closure to bite, Trump ensures that the immediate pain is concentrated in exactly the jurisdictions that have most conspicuously free‑ridden on US power: the EU and the UK. Their industries, consumers and energy‑transition assumptions are exposed.
In that context, his reported blunt message to European and British leaders, you need the oil out of the Strait more than we do; why don’t you go and take it? Is not a throwaway line. It is the verbalisation of the antithesis. It openly reverses the traditional presumption that America will carry the burden while its allies emote from the sidelines.
In this dialectic, the prize is not simply the reopening of a chokepoint. The prize is a reordered system in which the United States effectively arbitrages and controls the global flow of oil. A world in which US‑aligned production in the Americas plus a discretionary capability to secure,or not secure, Hormuz places Washington at the centre of the hydrocarbon chessboard. For that strategic end, a rapid restoration of the old status quo would be counterproductive.
A quick, surgical “fix” of Hormuz would short‑circuit the dialectic. If Trump rapidly crushed Iran’s remaining coastal capabilities, swept the mines and escorted tankers back through the Strait, Europe and the UK would heave a sigh of relief and return to business as usual: underfunded militaries, maximalist green posturing and performative disdain for US power, all underwritten by that same power. The contradiction between their dependence and their posture would remain latent.
By declining to supply the synthesis on demand, and by explicitly telling London and Brussels to “go and take it” themselves, Trump forces a reckoning. European and British leaders must confront the fact that their energy systems, their industrial bases and their geopolitical sermons all rest on an American hard‑power foundation they neither finance nor politically respect. The longer the contradiction is allowed to unfold, the stronger the eventual synthesis can be: a new order in which access to secure flows, Hormuz, Venezuela and beyond, is explicitly conditional on real contributions, not assumed as a right.
In that sense, the delay in “taking” the Strait, and the challenge issued to US allies to do it themselves, is not indecision. It is the negative moment Hegel insisted was necessary for history to move. Only by withholding the old guarantee, and by saying so out loud to those who depended on it, can Trump hope to end the free ride.
Tom Phelan retweeted
This is not just a memory, it is the life I have lived, and the reason I will never stay silent.
In 2006, while working for the US-funded Arabic news network Alhurra, I was sent to Iraq.
My work took me deep inside prisons, sitting face to face with jihadists and terrorists, hearing,without filters, the ideology that fuels violence and destruction.
Then came the response. Al-Qaeda issued a FATWA against me. Fatwa is a religious decree that branded me an enemy and called for my death by any of their followers.
We alerted our office in DC. I was moved into the Green Zone, and two armed bodyguards were assigned to protect me.
But I refused to leave.
I stayed. I finished the work. Because exposing the truth mattered more than fear.
For more than 25 years, I have been confronting this ideology, challenging it, exposing it, and warning the West about its consequences.
I know how it spreads. I know how it hides behind narratives. And I know exactly what happens when people choose to ignore it.
I did not escape it only to watch it take root in the United States 🇺🇸
I will not be silent. I will not step back. And I will not allow the ideology I fought for decades to be imported into the country that gave me a shelter from these jihadists.
@mngop @MPLSGOP @RapidResponse47 @LeoTerrellDOJ @SenTedCruz @SenFettermanPA @SenTomCotton @elonmusk @FBIDirectorKash @SecWar
