Monday, April 27, 2026

No, I'm Not Going to Call This a 'Lone Wolf Attack'

No, I'm Not Going to Call This a 'Lone Wolf Attack'

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

As I was on X, watching the coverage of the attempted assassination at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, none other than Jimmy Kimmel popped up with yet another psychotic thing he said. Apparently, he was giving a mock WHCD speech when he decided to make this "joke."

In the joke, he highlights Melania Trump and says, "Mrs Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow." 

Did Kimmel know there would be another attempt on Trump that night? No. I sincerely doubt that would be the case. He's as guilty as Karoline Leavitt, who said in an interview that there'd be "shots fired" that night, regarding Trump's speech. The difference between Kimmel and Leavitt, however, is that Leavitt wasn't hoping any bullets would be fired that night. 

I think we can all safely come to the conclusion that Kimmel does. 

And I can come to that conclusion because this wasn't the first assassination attempt. It's not even the second. 

At what point do you see this keeps happening and think, "Okay, let's turn down the heat a bit?"

But that doesn't happen. It continues. It persists. The left keeps openly talking about violence against the POTUS and his supporters, and you can see the ones who think they have nothing to lose actively mourning the failure of each assassin every time it happens. They stomp their feet, snap their fingers, and in a unified sentiment say, "We'll get him next time."

And then it happens again, and we call it a "lone wolf attack."

We call so many things "lone wolf" attacks, but I'm not entirely sure what happened during the events on Saturday night should count as one of them. 

So far, it seems the man acted alone, but due to what we've gathered from law enforcement's investigations, it's pretty clear that this was another anti-Trump radical whose entire plan was to spare as many people as possible but who wanted to take out Trump's top administrative officials from top to bottom. 

And the pattern persists as much as the murderous sentiment does. 

The left, including politicians, media figures, activists, and influencers, refer to Trump as every horrible thing under the sun. They call him a pedophile, they call him a rapist, they call him a racist, they tell everyone he's destroying democracy. 

They promote the idea that he's created a Gestapo force called ICE that goes around and rounds up immigrants and kicks them out, never commenting on the reason they're being kicked out. 

They tell the LGBTQ community he's actively trying to kill them. They push the idea that he's going to force Christian fascism on everyone. 

Then they sit back and wait, and sure enough, someone from the people they've been radicalizing takes a shot. So far, they've all missed, once by what I can only assume is the work of God Himself, because no one is that lucky. 

And then, they half-heartedly wag their finger, virtue signal about violence not being the answer, then, like that Jeremy Clarkson meme, say "oh well," and then go right back to doing everything in their power to make people insane enough to try to take yet another shot. 

This isn't the effort of an individual. It's the work of a system that continues to pump out apocalyptic propaganda about a man who, while flawed, is hardly the demon they're making him out to be. This isn't just one crazy guy; this is the work of major networks and one major party fueling the insanity and then giving little winks and nudges in hopes that someone will take on the responsibility. 

This isn't just one man. It's the left. 

This isn't a lone wolf attack. It's a concerted effort that only looks hands-off, but rest assured, the blood is still on their hands. 

https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2026/04/26/no-im-not-going-to-call-this-a-lone-wolf-attack-n2201713?utm_source=rsafternoonbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Sunday, April 26, 2026

What We Know Now: Suspect Mailed Manifesto to Family Just Before WHCD Attack

What We Know Now: Suspect Mailed Manifesto to Family Just Before WHCD Attack

AP Photo/Allison Robbert

We can now report a few more facts about the attempt on President Trump and Trump administration officials at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner on Saturday. More information about would-be assassin Cole Allen has been uncovered, and it's about like you might expect.

Jacqui Heinrich's full post reads:

NEWS: new info on the WHCD shooting suspect, Cole Allen, from the White House. I'll be talking with President Trump about all of this in 30 minutes on 

@SundayBriefFNC The suspect’s written manifesto clearly stated he wanted to target administration officials. He also had a ton of anti-Trump and anti-Christian rhetoric on his social media accounts.

ALLEN's brother had notified New London PD (CT) of ALLEN's alleged manifesto he had sent to his family members prior to the incident.

 Secret Service and Montgomery County Police interviewed Avriana Allen, ALLEN’s sister, at their residence in Rockville, MD. The following highlights from the interview:

  • Allen said her brother had a tendency to make radical statements and his rhetoric constantly referenced a plan to do “something” to fix the issues with today’s world.
  • Confirmed ALLEN purchased two handguns and a shotgun from Cap Tactical Firearms and kept them stored at their parent’s home and that their parents were unaware that ALLEN was keeping the firearms in the home.
  • ALLEN would regularly go to the shooting range to train with his firearms
  • ALLEN was part of a group called ‘The Wide Awakes’
  • ALLEN attended a ‘No Kings’ protest in California at some point

A new Sunday morning exclusive at the New York Post has more:

Gunman Cole Allen sent an anti-President Trump manifesto to his family members about 10 minutes before opening fire at Saturday night’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner — calling himself the “Friendly Federal Assassin” and revealing he was trying to kill Trump administration officials, The Post has learned.

“Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial,” Allen wrote in the document, which a relative provided to police, a US official said.

“I’m not a schoolkid blown up, or a child starved, or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration. Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.”

The operative word here would seem to be "nuts."


Read More: WHCD Fallout: Trump Makes Case for New WH Ballroom

After WHCD Shooting Scare, World Leaders Rally Behind US


The invocation of Christian behavior here is a real eyebrow-raiser; most Christians and, indeed, anyone who is familiar with Christian principles and ethics, would tell you that assassination is frowned upon in the Christian world. But from the evidence now coming to light, it is pretty plain what kind of person we're dealing with here; Cole Allen may be listed on the voter rolls as "no preference," which we verified on Saturday, but that may well be because the Democratic Party, even in California, doesn't seem to be far enough to the left for him.

Here's the part that should have the Secret Service sweating:

“Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance.
I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat,” he wrote.

“The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before.

Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again.”

He's not entirely wrong, and that's a statement that brings back memories of the event at a Trump rally in a place called Butler, Pennsylvania.

Check back regularly, folks. As we learn more about Cole Allen, we'll bring you the details.

https://redstate.com/wardclark/2026/04/26/what-we-know-now-suspect-mailed-manifesto-to-family-just-before-whcd-attack-n2201709?utm_source=rsafternoonbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

The Triumph of Economic Freedom?

The Triumph of Economic Freedom?

The Triumph of Economic Freedom?
AP Photo/Richard Drew, File

Prices rise. People blame capitalism.

Politicians promise "solutions."

President Donald Trump wants to cap credit card interest rates.

My socialist mayor wants to freeze rents.

Elizabeth Warren wants politicians to decide what prices are "excessive."

So I was surprised to see economist Donald J. Boudreaux's new book titled "The Triumph of Economic Freedom."

"Economic freedom is losing!" I shout at him in my new video. "Republicans and Democrats vote against it."

"Free markets are on the ropes," he replies. "But when you look at history, you see that when economic freedom is allowed to flourish, it does triumph. ... It's really important that people step back and look at economic history ... (to see that) "the more we move away from free markets, the worse things become."

We should have learned that from the Great Depression.

Schools now teach children that President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal "brought the United States out of the Great Depression."

Not true, says Boudreaux. "He created government programs all right, but they did not pull us out of the Depression. Unemployment in the 1930s was never below 10%."

When farmers complained about low prices, FDR blamed an oversupply of food. So the government paid farmers to destroy crops.

"People were hungry and they were destroying food!" complains Boudreaux. "How was that good?"

"It raised prices," I say. "Farmers wouldn't go bankrupt."

"People can't eat prices! They have to eat food."

FDR's other "solutions" included higher taxes on the rich and more regulation of businesses -- proposals we hear today.

"By introducing these new unprecedented programs," says Boudreaux, "the New Deal made investment in America a risky project. That kept private investors on the sidelines."

Why wouldn't they invest?

"FDR is criticizing businesspeople and blaming (them) for all that ails America," replies Boudreaux. "Those businesspeople were saying, 'I'm not going to trust my property to you.'"

The Depression continued for more than a decade, until, according to the Library of Congress, "Mobilizing the economy for world war finally cured the depression."

That's a myth, too, says Boudreaux.

"Unemployment fell. That's not hard to do when you conscript 2.5 million men into the military. But If you look at the actual performance of the economy, that didn't recover until the late 1940s."

It recovered, says Boudreaux, because "Republicans won the 1946 election, and they were more pro-investor, pro-business than the Democrats." And FDR died. "Harry Truman was less vigorously opposed to capitalists ... So investors were finally confident to come back into the playing field."

Seventy years later, politicians from both parties created the "Great Recession" by having government subsidize mortgages. When the mortgage bubble burst, home prices collapsed, banks lost big, and millions lost jobs.

"What the government did was impose policies that made homeownership seem affordable to people who couldn't afford it and compel banks to back those mortgages," explains Boudreaux. "When things went down ... you had this calamity."

Politicians blamed that recession on "an unregulated free market."

It's a fallacy, says Boudreaux, "that deregulation led to the Great Recession. There was very little deregulation."

He says the "reason the Great Recession lasted as long as it did is because Barack Obama kept saying hostile things about markets and businesspeople."

Obama did shout things like, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that!"

"Negative words from the White House kept investors on the sidelines, kept unemployment higher than it would otherwise have been," says Boudreaux.

Obama's policies didn't help either. He expanded unemployment benefits, boasting it "made a difference in the lives of 12 million Americans!"

"Yeah, it did," says Boudreaux. "It kept them unemployed a lot longer ... because people were being paid not to work."

Today, politicians and pundits continue to claim capitalism is a problem and government must step in to make it more fair.

"They don't know what they're talking about!" says Boudreaux. "Government's 'solutions' actually made things worse."

Free markets do work. If politicians just let them.

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2026/04/22/the-triumph-of-economic-freedom-n2674853?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-aDh8pRusrE&utm_term=&_nlid=aDh8pRusrE&_nhids=ncR4xIKpiejmls

Jonathan Turley Levels Democrats for Vowing to Impeach Trump Again

Jonathan Turley Levels Democrats for Vowing to Impeach Trump Again

Jonathan Turley Levels Democrats for Vowing to Impeach Trump Again
Kenny Holston/The New York Times via AP, Pool

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a Fox News contributor, criticized Democrats over vows to impeach President Trump for a third time if they regain control of Congress after this year’s midterm elections. 

Turley described the effort as “revenge” and “straight retaliation,” arguing that it risks making a mockery of impeachment. He pointed out that Democrats have, in his view, moved forward without formal investigations or hearings, effectively turning the process into something akin to a British-style vote of no confidence.

"It's a very destructive series of pledges that they're making," Turley said of Democrats. "It's part of this age of rage. They're promising straight revenge, straight retaliation."

"This is injecting that rage directly into the body politic. And there are many people who believe that that can carry them back into power," he continued, adding that he isn't sure if it will work in the Democrats' favor."

I testified at the Clinton impeachment and I testified at the Trump impeachment. And at the Trump impeachment, I asked Congress, and specifically the House, not to do what it was about to do, which is to destroy the body of law we have around impeachment. Instead of listening, they went ahead and impeached, but then they did one better. And the next impeachment, they didn't even hold a hearing.

"They did what I refer to as a snap impeachment and just went straight to impeachment, no hearing, no investigation. So this has become a pattern for Democrats. And I cannot express how damaging that is for our constitutional values and history," he said. "They're making impeachment into a version of the English vote of No Confidence. That's not what it is. It is something much more serious than that."

"They are turning it into an unbridled circus."

This is a pattern that has been consistent among Democrats: taking elements of U.S. rights and laws and stripping them of much of their original meaning. They do this with the right to protest, guaranteed by the First Amendment, where interviewers often ask liberals at demonstrations what they’re protesting, and they cite a wide range of causes—only one or two of which are actually relevant to the event itself. They do the same with free speech, often picking and choosing what speech deserves protection and what does not, frequently at the expense of conservative viewpoints. They do it with executive power as well, often leading efforts to expand presidential authority, and in the way they speak about the Constitution as though it were a roadblock rather than a safeguard of freedom. 

In the same way, they now threaten to make a mockery of what it means to impeach a president.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/dmitri-bolt/2026/04/20/jonathan-turley-blasts-democrats-for-vowing-to-impeach-trump-n2674756?utm_source=thdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-gxSXDAjvEV&utm_term=&_nlid=gxSXDAjvEV&_nhids=ncM71FpkuEqbls

How education’s decline is corroding a pillar of the left’s power

How education’s decline is corroding a pillar of the left’s power

Beneath the weather of the daily headlines, slow tectonic shifts are changing America’s political landscape. 

Demographic developments are moving voters (and congressional seats, and electoral votes) from blue states to red ones

Trust in the traditional media — routinely in the tank for Democrats — has plummeted.

And the entire education industry, a key pillar of the leftist establishment, is now crumbling, too.

The long decline of higher education — the subject of my 2012 book “The Higher Education Bubble” — has been slowly accelerating for over a decade, driven by sky-high tuition and shrinking employment prospects for recent college grads. 

When Hampshire College in Massachusetts announced its plans to close last week, it became the latest private college to fall victim to the ruin. 

Others include King’s College in New York, Birmingham-Southern College in Alabama and St. Andrews in North Carolina, among many more. 

More than a quarter of the nation’s private colleges is at risk of closure in the next decade, NPR reported last week.

Even some law schools have gone out of business.

As I predicted, small, expensive private schools that aren’t at the top of the prestige ladder are the first to go — though some, like Hampshire, are fairly fancy. 

But the impact is much broader.

Back in the 1970s, college underwent a huge societal change.

Before that, going to college was a choice made by only a few; after, it became an essential ticket to respectable middle-class or upper-middle-class status. 

Now we seem to be reverting to a more traditional view, as college takes a less central role in societal expectations. 

As young people see older relatives, neighbors and others graduate college with crippling debt and no job prospects, the downside of devoting four years to higher education seems more plain. 

And the image of college as a carefree period of fun is undercut by the cheerless wokescolds who run many campuses. 

Colleges today are awarding the smallest number of humanities degrees since 1991, 30% below 2012.

Two decades ago, I’d often hear journalists express hope that their publication would stay afloat until they could retire. 

Now I hear the same thing from fellow professors.

This is dreadful news for leftists, who have used universities as their money laundry and recruiting ground for decades. 

Taxpayer money flows in (whether the institution is public or private); power and influence flow out.

Leftists are hired as faculty, activists are paid to be speakers or “visiting scholars,” leftist books and documentaries are bought and inflicted on students, and a vast bloated campus bureaucracy provides day jobs for dedicated true believers. 

Now all that is in peril.

College won’t disappear, but the glory days — and lavish funding — are clearly in the rear-view mirror. 

Those institutions that are still flourishing seem to be disproportionately located in red states, and are often explicitly non-woke.

Meanwhile, public K-12 education is undergoing a decline of its own. 

A recent report from Bellwether, an education think tank, explored the sharp decline in public-school enrollment, which deepened during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Eight states — California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and West Virginia — are on pace to see enrollment plummet by more than 10% in the next five years, researchers found.

Some of this is pure demographics, tied to lower birth rates.

But some of it is tied to a loss of faith in public schools.

During the COVID years, Americans saw that educators’ priorities seemed to center on ensuring teachers didn’t actually have to come in to work.

The lockdowns also exposed parents to the poor quality of the lessons and texts their kids were studying.

This has produced a boom in homeschooling, which is no longer a marginal phenomenon: There are now over 3.4 million homeschooled students, more than 6% of the K-12 population, and those numbers are growing.

Private-school enrollment has grown in 24 states since 2012, and that too will likely increase as more states adopt voucher and scholarship programs.

And the significant growth in charter-school enrollment has also chipped away at the power of traditional public schools.

These trends, too, hurt the left.

Public-school teachers lean overwhelmingly Democraticas do their unions and the bloated armies of public-school administrators and staff. 

They form a ready source of campaign donations, volunteers and voters — and as they shrink, so does an essential part of the leftist base. 

Like universities, public schools won’t go away, but they are withering just when the left needs them most.

No wonder the Democrats have been so eager to import fresh voters via immigration, and to indoctrinate the children of conservatives in left-leaning educational institutions.

And no wonder they’re seeming a bit desperate these days to use gerrymandering and election shenanigans to lock down their power for as long as they can.

https://nypost.com/2026/04/21/opinion/how-educations-decline-corrodes-a-pillar-of-the-lefts-power/