David retweeted
It needs to be stated Scott Galloway calling for the death of Elon Musk isn't normal commentary, he appears genuinely mentally disturbed and in need of psychiatric help. I don't understand how he still has corporate sponsors or gets invited to speak at major events
David retweeted
Here is what I can never seem to understand: people who have years on the record of saying one thing who flip flop completely randomly.
On July 21, 2006, Ann Coulter appeared on Sean Hannity and proposed to “carpet-bomb Iran so they can’t build a transistor radio” meaning get a nuclear weapon. Six days later, on Hardball, she talked about military action rather than allowing Iran’s leadership to obtain any nuclear weapons. (mediamatters.org, mediamatters.org) Eight years later, in July 2014: “I wish we could have Netanyahu as our president.” Re Palestine: “Yes, sometimes Palestinian kids get killed.” (realclearpolitics.com, transcripts.cnn.com)
By March 27, 2025 (nineteen years after advocating bombing Iran) Coulter was describing Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force as just a “high-ranking Iranian official,” calling him “beloved by the Iranian people,” and reporting that Iranians credited him with defeating ISIS. In that same column, she praised Vance’s objections in the Signal discussion and supported withdrawing protection from Bolton and Pompeo, arguing that officials who promoted military action should face its consequences. By November 2026, Netanyahu was at the top of her list of people to distrust over Iran.
Why by the way sounds very much like the kinds of comments you would hear from Ilhan Omar.
What changed?
That would be her relationship with The American Conservative which publishes her columns and interviewed her about Iran and backing Vance over Rubio.
The American Conservative was founded to challenge Republican foreign-policy. It has always represented a dissenting paleoconservative faction, rather than the party’s dominant position. At least it used to.
Governing board
Dominique Watkins, Scott McConnell, Robert W. Merry, Michael C. Desch, George D. O’Neill Jr., Rachel Bovard, Daniel McCarthy, Catharine O’Neill Gillihan
Advisory board
Tucker Carlson, Timothy P. Carney, James Piereson, Charles Marohn, Jeff Sessions
Netanyahu Grabbed Trump By The P*ssy
Our most urgent task after the midterms is to create a list of everyone who supported the Iran War so we’ll know who to never, ever, ever, ever trust again. Pending a full accounting, here are the top two: Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, and Rupert Murdoch — still alive as of this writing — patriarch of Fox News and The New York Post.
It may be unfair to blame Netanyahu, since it obviously doesn’t matter who the prime minister is. Israelis overwhelmingly support the war and worship Trump for pursuing it.
Let’s see how much they love this: eighty percent of the party that’s about to control Congress has an unfavorable view of Israel. (And the other 20% is fanatically anti-Israel.)
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and closely affiliated United Democracy Project (UDP) spent an estimated $45 million to defeat Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan—who famously refused to answer whether Israel or Iran was a bigger threat to the U.S. That money became toxic, driving support for El-Sayed. He will now be the first Muslim United States senator.
As some of us warned you from the beginning, the war was going to be very bad for our country, bad for the GOP—and bad for Israel. That’s why a lot of people who appreciate Israel’s core values were among those issuing this warning. But war supporters apparently felt their strongest counter-argument was to scream about antisemitism.
Mark Levin, whom Murdoch has given his own show for some reason, called war opponents the “Woke Reich” driven by a “hatred of Jews” who are “ok with Iran and Putin” and act as “the modern-day appeasers of Hitler in the 1930s.”
Even Ben Shapiro, who unlike Levin was never kicked in the head by a horse, denounced libertarian Rep. Thomas Massie for opposing the war, as well as foreign aid to Israel—or to anybody else, for that matter—accusing him of harboring a “not particularly subtle antisemitism.” (Sorry, Ben! You’re almost always right, but this is a really annoying argument.)
And look what happened. Previously, most Americans never thought about Israel, and those who did—evangelicals and neoconservatives—unreservedly supported it. A Pew poll this spring found that 60% of Americans now hold an unfavorable view of the country. In a Quinnipiac University survey, 60% of voters said they disapproved of the U.S. sending military aid to Israel. This matched other surveys, such as one by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
Today—for the first time since 2001—more Americans sympathize with the Palestinians than with Israel, according to Gallup polls. Support for Israel used to run in the double digits. ...
While the media are determined to convince us the blue tsunami was about the public’s hatred of ICE, Elon Musk, tariffs, “voter suppression,” Jan. 6, and that monkey business at Bonwit Teller, voters have consistently said it’s the Iran War and its consequences.
October polls:
· AP-NORC poll: 80% want the next Congress to make “cost of living” a top priority; 70% say ending the Iran war is the top priority.
· NYT/Siena poll: Voters trust Democrats more than Republicans on two issues: gas prices and “foreign wars.” Trump’s worst issue was gas prices, with 73% disapproving.
· Fox News poll: 75% “extremely” or “very” concerned about the Iran war.
· Gallup poll: 47% called the Iran War “extremely important,” and 42% named “gas prices.” Only the economy and healthcare narrowly edged out Iran as extremely important at 50% each.
And so on. Virtually every poll shows that the top election issues were the Iran War, gas prices, and the cost of living. And the reason gas prices are high is because of the war; the reason the cost of living is high is because of gas prices.
FULL COLUMN WITH LINKS HERE:
anncoulter.substack.com/p/ne…
David retweeted
This is a total hoot.
About the only thing it gets correct is that 2024 Trump voters were "pissed." As the polls spell out, very clearly, they were angry about tariffs--a word weirdly not found in this post, but which exit polls showed 65% of voters dislike. There's a straight line between those punishing costs and Senate losses in Kansas, Iowa, Ohio (farm areas) and beyond.
Angry the WH instead spent this past year talking about ballrooms and the Kennedy center. Frustrated by the complete absence of a next-two-year agenda (85% are concerned by healthcare costs. Where is the GOP plan?)
They are also unhappy about the war, though the numbers might be different if the president been clear about an exit strategy. And not sure where the "smartest" (and most anonymous) pollster in the world got the Israel argument. Exit polls show that of the 51% of voters who said our support for Israel was "too strong," only 19% of even that subset of respondents were Republican. The vast majority of GOP voters said our support for Israel was "just right" or "not strong enough."
Amusing to claim the problem here was traditional conservatives, as they were sidelined. Tillis was run out of the party, dooming NC. As was Cornyn. The WH had a pure expression of its second-term Trump/Vance agenda and loyalty in its chosen candidate of Ken Paxton. That would be the smoking carcass sitting on a 12-point loss in. . . Texas of all places. Meanwhile, who exactly is even talking about "asylum"? That's just a smear-y effort to preemptively shut down valid criticism.
The GOP strength has always been in its coalition--free-marketers, defense hawks, cultural conservatives. Trump's first-term success came from largely following that Reagan playbook. The second-term leaned into me-too progressive populism--at the veep's urging--and it ain't working.
The weird thing is that the veep remains more obsessed with remaking the party than with winning. Winning will require a lot better understanding of what happened yesterday than what is on offer in this alternate-universe view.
One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.
So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."
Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.
There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.
But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.
Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:
1) End the war
2) Focus on cost of living/inflation
3) Put America First
4) Change our relationship to Israel
Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)
In the next few months, there's going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I'm open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.
The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.
If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest.
But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.
I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.
David retweeted
Former Stevens friend: “Haley betrayed us. What would her mother say?”
Haley’s mother:”I voted for Rogers.”
xitter.gq/polltracker2024/status…
unavailable
David retweeted
The ease at which Hochul lies here is wild.
New York BANNED natural gas extraction, won’t allow gas hookups to new construction, CLOSED Indian Point nuclear site, is BLOCKING Constitution Pipeline, set expensive climate goals Albany politicians know can’t be reached, and has electric rates MASSIVELY above national average.
cbsnews.com/newyork/news/kat…
David retweeted
If you listen carefully it’s a misplaced anger at his own parents for not making him feel worthy that turned into raging jealousy of other children who had parents that lifted them up and poured into them. He’s projected all of that onto white people. He needs to mend his heart before thinking about running for any office. White ppl haven’t hurt him. He knows exactly who did. Notice how he doesn’t get the satisfaction he was craving when the interviewer simply anchors himself & doesn’t validate that experience. We should all do more of this. Don’t validate anyone’s experience for the sake of temporary bonding.
David retweeted
I honestly have a pretty good idea that she is lying.
Vote for Senator Dan Sullivan Alaskans. He’s got “incumbent” next to his name. He’s a great Senator and as a retired Marine Corps colonel, you know he’s honorable and has worked hard for your state.
Don’t rank Mary, anywhere. Don’t reward cheating.
David retweeted
🚨 WTF?! Alaska Gov. Dunleavy just revealed the FAKE Dan Sullivan tried putting his name on the ballot with a FAKE middle initial, in order to perfectly match the REAL Dan Sullivan
Fake Dan's middle initial is J. Real Dan's is S. Fake Dan tried putting his name on the ballot as "DANIEL S. SULLIVAN"
TOTALLY FRAUDULENT!
David retweeted
Literally no one has done more for Alaska’s fishing interests than @SenDanSullivan.
But Mary Peltola already knows that.
Otherwise she’d be trying to win on her own merits—rather than conspiring to deceive Alaskans by arranging for “fake” Dan Sullivan to enter the race.
David retweeted
My biggest concern is that if there is a clean sweep by Democrats of the House, Senate and Presidency in 2028, they will:
1. Make DC and Puerto Rico states to gain a strong majority in the Senate.
2. Open the borders and legalize everyone living in America illegally to cement a permanent majority.
3. Increase the size of the Supreme Court to gain an immediate majority.
This would result in America becoming a permanent one-party state and the end of democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.
All that is needed to ensure this doesn’t happen is 51 Republican senators in 2029. That is why you should vote for Republican senators this election. Other reasons are irrelevant compared to this one.
David retweeted
My ObamaCare policy has jumped by double digits every single year for years now... about $1K a month for a worthless policy. Doesn't kick in until ~ $20K in medical expenses. I can't do it anymore.
Obama's healthcare legacy is a lot like his library: a garbage dump of failure.
David retweeted
How can @MIT and President Kornbluth sit back and allow Kristin Knouse to remain on the MIT faculty when she has been found by a jury of her peers to have falsely accused him of rape, and intentionally destroyed his life and career with the help of co-conspirators in the MIT administration?
How does this not violate MIT’s code of conduct?
How can one continue to trust the research she produces?
Why has MIT not immediately launched a formal investigation to reconsider the removal of @DMSabatini’s tenure and Knouse’s continued inclusion on the faculty?
The evidence from the case is now in the public record. It is a straightforward process for MIT to review the facts.
Justice must be served.
Female MIT scientist climbed into famed professor's bed and 'aggressively' demanded sex... before making #MeToo allegation that almost ruined him after he dumped her
dailymail.com/news/article-1…
David retweeted
Michigan Sen candidate El-Sayed says he’s a capitalist, despite plans to socialize medicine, confiscate huge sectors of the economy like AI, and more than double the size of govt. The Detroit News doesn’t buy his “born-again capitalism” and neither should voters.
detroitnews.com/story/opinio…
David retweeted
Mattress Girl, the Columbia student who carried a mattress around campus for a year, got her name and photo on the NYT front page without a scintilla of doubt. Why the certainty? The accused was a White male. Then her texts to him came out, and Columbia settled with him.
David retweeted
For anyone confused about what happened in Brazil…
Imagine if the Kamala Harris campaign, after losing the first round of voting by over two MILLION votes and watching her trail all month, spent Election Day not counting voters but counting buses, and when the courts refused to arrest a city official over a bus spreadsheet, they didn't take no for an answer, they went around the election court entirely, straight to a Supreme Court justice who just happened to be the Democratic president's former personal lawyer, the same president who put him on the bench, and that justice just happened to rule three minutes before polls closed, so late that many machines were already shut and sealed, and then, instead of fixing it, he quietly rewrote his own order so that only the stations still open could keep voting, and nobody, not the press, not the election officials, not anyone, can tell you how many stayed open, or where they were, or why that list hasn't been released, or whether it just happened to line up with the exact neighborhoods the Democrats had spent all day naming, while Republican voters in flooded, blacked-out towns who had begged for extra time were told the doors were locked and to go home, and then the vote count itself was frozen for two full hours in the dark, and when the lights came back on the Democrat had pulled off the first runoff comeback in the nation's history, and the same people who spent four years saying trust the institutions announced the institutions had worked perfectly, that asking which polls stayed open was an attack on democracy, that the list of open polls was classified for the good of democracy which is roughly where Brazil is tonight.
David retweeted
Unless Abdul El-Sayed immediately demands that this campaign ad be taken down and unequivocally condemns it and its creators, he will be exposed as a vile, dangerous, and divisive antisemite. Any (of my fellow) Democrats who condemn the disgusting Ramaswamy ad in Ohio but do not condemn this deserve our unflinching contempt.
David retweeted
> be a high-flying MIT scientist
> discover mTOR
> expected to win a Nobel Prize some day
> have consensual relationship with younger female biology MIT professor
> she accuses him of sexual harassment, coercion and grooming after he declines a long term relationship with her
> MIT launches investigation
> MIT lets the accuser’s allies help pick the judges and threaten the president if he wasn’t destroyed
> lo and behold, investigation finds he violated MIT’s sexual relationship and anti-harassment policies
> he gets fired and resigns under threat of termination
> loses his lab
> he sues her for defamation
> jury awards him $6 million in defamation case and rejects her claims that she was coerced in any way
How did 13 members of a civilian jury come to a different conclusion than @MIT?
Answer: MIT’s investigation was not exactly independent thanks to coordinated female faculty collusion. It was a kangaroo court and the verdict was pre-determined
🚨 BOMBSHELL COURT EVIDENCE EXPOSES INSIDER INFLUENCE OVER MIT'S TENURE-REVIEW PROCESS IN THE DAVID M. SABATINI ORDEAL.
🔱 NEW REVELATION — Court evidence exposes MIT Professor Sangeeta Bhatia's involvement in the selection of Sabatini's tenure-review committee
On 27 September 2021, Kristin Knouse exchanged messages with Izabella Pena following a conversation with @MIT Professor Sangeeta Bhatia.
The court-disclosed messages reveal Kristin Knouse telling Izabella Pena:
🔴 “Sangeeta just called”
🔴 “they even asked for insight into who to put on the committee”
🔴 “AND she said she will go to Rafael Reif’s office and protest the decision if and when needed.”
Pena responded:
“At least they are asking her insight”
Knouse replied:
“Exactly”
“This is good”
⚠️ The evidence exposes a troubling channel of insider influence surrounding MIT's tenure-review process.
These contemporaneous communications document that Knouse understood Bhatia to have been consulted about the committee's composition and to be prepared to challenge its eventual decision directly with MIT President Rafael Reif.
Rather than an independent review insulated from interested parties, the messages reveal access to the committee-selection process by an academic aligned with the complainant, raising serious concerns about institutional impartiality and conflicts of interest.
This disclosure adds another significant piece to the growing documentary record surrounding the institutional handling of Professor @DMSabatini's case.
📑 REVIEW THW ORIGINAL COURT EVIDENCE BELOW.
🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team
MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️
@SciGuardians 🔱
David retweeted
Six police surround myself and my wife and arrest us at home. This is from the police bodycam footage. We’re currently taking action against Bedfordshire police for this outrageous arrest. Myself and my wife were clearly soft targets, not exactly hardened criminals but they handcuffed both anyway …all charges dropped after a couple of months with no apology or explanation. The children were terrorised and they’ll never trust the police again.