PLEASE REMEMBER TO SHARE & SUBSCRIBE!

PLEASE HELP KEEP OUR NEWSLETTER FREE BY SIMPLY CLICKING THE LINK IN THIS AD. NO NEED TO DO ANYTHING FURTHER!

What We’re Searching With.

Oh, the internet. It can be a scary place… but less so with Freespoke. Freespoke is a search engine that does a few important things differently:

• News results show all sides with media biases labeled (left, middle, right)

• Their new election portal delivers unbiased election coverage so you can make up your own mind

• No adult content by default – they’re a partner in protecting your families from bad content.

Freespoke is the search platform that respects your privacy and doesn’t manipulate the information you find online.

Try searching on Freespoke, and search beyond the bias.

CHECK OUT THE LATEST EPISODE OF LIVE WITH CHRIS’WORLD!

WE FILTER NEWS SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO BECAUSE FACTS AND TRUTH MATTER!

Governor Gavin Newsom's decision to allocate $25 million for a litigation fund to challenge Trump's deportation policies is seen by many as a blatant misuse of taxpayer money to further a political agenda. This move is perceived as California's Democratic leadership actively obstructing federal immigration enforcement, prioritizing sanctuary state policies over national security and legal order. Critics argue that Newsom's actions are less about protecting immigrants and more about undermining a Trump administration's efforts to enforce laws, suggesting a preference for political posturing over the welfare of American citizens and the integrity of the nation's immigration system.

• State Funds Misused: Using state funds to fight federal policy is seen as a misallocation of resources that should be spent on state issues like education, infrastructure, or public safety.

• Undermining Federal Law: This litigation fund is interpreted as an attempt to usurp federal authority, placing California's policy above national immigration laws.

• Political Ambition: Newsom's initiative could be part of a strategy to appeal to progressive voters, potentially positioning himself for a future national political run.

• Encourages Illegal Immigration: By offering legal protection, California might inadvertently encourage more illegal border crossings.

• Economic Strain: The fund ignores the economic impact of illegal immigration on state resources, particularly in areas like healthcare, education, and social services.

• Moral and Legal Concerns: Protecting individuals who have entered the country illegally is viewed as rewarding law-breaking and ignoring the legal immigration process, which undermines the rule of law.

• Security Risks: There's a concern that less stringent immigration enforcement could lead to potential security threats by not properly vetting entrants.

Newsom's protective stance towards undocumented immigrants is often attributed to a combination of ideological commitment to inclusivity and political strategy, aiming to align with the progressive base of the Democratic Party.

The staggering fact that nearly 28% of the U.S. government's revenue will be funneled towards servicing debt interest in 2025 is a stark reminder of the unsustainable fiscal path the country has been on. This situation underscores the urgent need for fiscal responsibility and conservative economic policies, which have been advocated by President Trump during his tenure. Trump's approach of promoting economic growth through deregulation, tax cuts, and advocating for budget discipline aimed to reduce the national debt burden, thereby lowering future interest payments and freeing up funds for essential services, defense, and infrastructure, rather than merely sustaining debt.

• Fiscal Irresponsibility: The ballooning interest payments highlight years of unchecked spending by previous administrations, contrasting with Trump's push for budget cuts and tax reform.

• Economic Growth: Trump's policies were focused on boosting the economy to increase tax revenues through growth rather than through tax hikes, which could have mitigated the interest payment burden.

• Debt Reduction: A conservative approach would prioritize reducing the national debt to decrease interest costs, freeing up revenue for other priorities.

• Crowding Out: High interest payments crowd out spending on vital government functions, reducing investment in infrastructure, military, and social programs.

• Tax Policy Critique: The current revenue levels might suggest that tax policies need reevaluation; Trump's tax cuts were intended to stimulate the economy, potentially leading to higher revenues through economic expansion.

• Future Generations: The rising interest payments represent a generational theft, with today's overspending leading to future generations inheriting a larger debt burden.

• Need for Reform: There's an urgent call for entitlement reform, budget balancing, and perhaps revisiting Trump-era policies to address this looming fiscal crisis.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, through their involvement with the Department of Government Efficiency, are contemplating the abolition of daylight saving time, a move that aligns with conservative principles of reducing unnecessary government interventions in daily life. This potential policy change would eliminate the biannual time adjustment, which many argue disrupts productivity, health, and local economies. By streamlining time management, this initiative would reduce confusion, save energy, and align with the conservative ethos of minimal government interference, promoting efficiency and individual liberty in daily routines.

• Boost Productivity: Eliminating the time change could lead to improved productivity as people's sleep patterns and work schedules would not be disturbed twice a year.

• Health Benefits: Studies suggest that the shift in time can affect health, causing sleep disturbances and related issues like heart attacks. Permanent time could stabilize sleep cycles.

• Energy Savings: While originally designed to save energy, modern studies show mixed results; some suggest that permanent daylight saving or standard time might actually reduce energy consumption by optimizing daylight usage.

• Economic Advantages: Businesses would not lose productivity due to the time shift, and there would be fewer disruptions in scheduling, potentially leading to consistent economic activity.

• Simplification: It simplifies life by removing the need for time adjustments, reducing the risk of errors in systems and schedules that depend on time accuracy.

• Public Sentiment: There's significant public support for ending the practice, reflecting a desire for government actions that respect public preference and reduce unnecessary regulations.

• Government Efficiency: This aligns with the mission of the Department of Government Efficiency by cutting out an anachronistic practice, showcasing a government that responds to modern needs rather than outdated policies.

President Biden's decision to allocate $1 billion for African nations to rebuild after natural disasters while many American citizens still suffer from hurricane damages underscores a perceived disconnect within the Democratic Party. This move is criticized by many Americans for prioritizing foreign aid over domestic recovery efforts, suggesting a misalignment in priorities. The administration's claim of financial constraints when it comes to helping Americans rebuild their lives post-disaster, yet finding funds for international aid, paints a picture of an administration out of touch with the needs of its own citizens. This sentiment reflects why some voters turned away from the Democrats in recent elections, seeking a leader like Trump who promised to put America first.

• America First: The allocation of funds to foreign countries while domestic victims are left in limbo contradicts the America First policy that resonates with many people of this country.

• Selective Funding: The apparent availability of funds for overseas aid while citing budget limitations for home recovery raises questions about fiscal priorities.

• Neglect of Domestic Needs: By focusing on international aid, Biden's administration seems to neglect pressing domestic issues, a point of contention among those affected by natural disasters at home.

• Public Trust: Such actions can erode public trust in the government, especially when constituents feel their immediate needs are being sidelined for global initiatives.

• Call for Change: Advocates for Trump and conservative policies argue for a reevaluation of how aid is distributed, emphasizing that charity begins at home.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams' desire to meet with Trump's Border Czar Tom Homan to discuss deportation policies reflects a pragmatic move to align with the incoming administration's agenda, especially considering his looming legal challenges. Adams' willingness to work with Homan, despite potential backlash from his progressive base, underscores a strategic pivot towards a more centrist or conservative-friendly stance. This outreach could be seen as an attempt to curry favor with the Trump administration, possibly seeking leniency or assistance with his legal issues or aiming to secure support for managing New York City's immigration situation in a manner that might be more palatable to federal authorities.

• Legal Strategy: Adams might be leveraging this relationship to influence how his legal troubles are handled under a Trump-led Justice Department.

• Political Survival: By aligning with Trump's policies, Adams could be safeguarding his political career in a city that might not always favor such positions.

• Public Safety: Meeting with Homan could be framed as a commitment to public safety, prioritizing the removal of criminal elements among immigrants, aligning with conservative law-and-order values.

• City Management: Adams might be looking for federal support to manage the influx of migrants and asylum seekers, which has been a significant challenge for sanctuary cities.

• Bipartisan Appeal: This move could appeal to moderate and conservative New Yorkers, potentially broadening his voter base or at least diluting opposition.

• Cancellation Risk: Adams' declaration of not caring about being canceled by the left suggests he's prepared to risk his current political alliances for potentially more substantial support or legal relief.

• Policy Alignment: His openness to discuss deportation plans indicates an effort to align city policies with federal enforcement, which is a core conservative principle regarding immigration law.

The reluctance of certain Republican Senators like Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, John Thune, and John Curtis to support Pete Hegseth’s nomination for Secretary of Defense can be seen as a disappointing lack of unity within the Republican Party. This hesitation might be interpreted as a continuation of the establishment's resistance to the America First agenda that Trump and his supporters advocate. Hegseth, with his military background and conservative stance against woke military policies, embodies the kind of leadership that aligns with Trump's vision for a strong, traditional military focus. Their reservations could stem from concerns over his experience level or the contentious nature of his previous statements, but for Trump supporters, this resistance undermines the push for a more assertive and less politically correct military leadership.

• Lack of Party Unity: The refusal to back Hegseth might be seen as yet another sign of division within the GOP, particularly against Trump-aligned candidates.

• Fear of Controversy: Senators might be wary of Hegseth's controversial positions, potentially fearing political blowback or a difficult confirmation process.

• Military Reforms: Hegseth's desire to remove progressive policies from the military could be at odds with moderates or establishment Republicans, AKA rinos.

• Establishment vs. Populist: This situation highlights the ongoing tension between the Republican establishment and the more populist, Trump-supportive wing of the party.

• Missing an Opportunity: Not supporting Hegseth could mean missing out on an opportunity to implement significant changes in military culture and policy. If these senators don’t certify, we should be sure to get them voted out of office.