Tag Archive for: RadicalDemocratParty

The Left Is Not Like Us

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Progressives do not want the same things as most Americans.

My colleague at the National Association of Scholars, David Acevedo, recently explained that the academic left does not apply “double standards,” because they don’t share the standards they flout. Rather, he writes, their “behavior is perfectly consistent with its true standard: gain power, crush resistance, and destroy the West by any means necessary.”

Acevedo is on point for all radical leftists, not just the academic variety. Their policies intentionally destabilize national security, personal safety, prosperity, the nuclear family, and religion, and are designed to cede America’s leadership to the so-called rules-based international alliance.

Progressives pretend to live in a utopia in which the rules of economics, physics, psychology, and science are suspended as they pursue unrealistic, tactical goals. Radical left leaders understand this dichotomy. Just as they have conceded high gas prices would force the middle class to buy electric cars, they believe the other harms they cause will facilitate achieving their ultimate objectives.

The far left readily acknowledges its preference for a centrally directed government, trillions of dollars of additional spending, higher taxes, the “green new deal,” the end of fossil fuels, restorative justice, racial and gender balancing, open borders, an LGBTQ+ obsession, and shutting down conservative voices. Now that its leaders are becoming comfortable admitting to being socialists, and even “trained Marxists,” the mask is dropping on their true ambitions.

Building on The Communist Manifesto’s call for “abolition of the family,” BLM initially sought to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” Many local chapters of BLM call for the abolition of capitalism. Oregon’s Department of Education characterizes its mission as “the restructuring and dismantling of systems and institutions that create the dichotomy of beneficiaries and the oppressed and marginalized.” An initiative funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sees its mission as “dismantling white supremacy.” The American Medical Association calls for “disrupting and dismantling existing norms.” The main trade publication for architects complains that “racism is a metastasis that is baked into every kernel, from planning and zoning to multi- and single-family housing and conversations about public and private space.”

“To love capitalism is to end up loving racism,” Ibram X. Kendi opines. Rather than be guided by the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution , and the Federalist Papers, radical leftists are guided by “social justice,” and “redistributive justice” through which government, academia, and corporations extort benefits for favored minorities from the privileged.

The left’s preoccupation with defunding police, and depriving them of both lethal and non-lethal tools, restorative justicedecarcerationeliminating cash bail, decriminalizing felonies, and refusing to prosecute lower level crimes, or seek sentencing enhancements, has caused violent crime to explode in major cities, up from five to 40 percent compared to the same period last year in Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle and Washington, D.C. They misdirect that Covid, the war in Ukraine, or tax loopholes has caused this increase is legerdemain. Criminals understand this. In Los Angeles, for example, there is a rush to obtain plea deals before the possible recall of progressive district attorney George Gascon. About 75 George Soros-linked district attorneys control the jurisdictions of 72 million Americans. With turnover exceeding 75 percent in many of these offices, experienced prosecutors are leaving, further eroding law enforcement.

The Biden administration’s war on the fossil fuel industry has erased America’s energy advantage, threatened prosperity and energy shortages, and forced America to seek accommodations from others. Bowing to radical left policies, instead of strengthening America’s infrastructure, the administration bizarrely used the Defense Production Act for solar panels, sought oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and has considered seeking oil from Iran.

The left is committed to open borders. Since Biden took office, most Trump-era restrictions on illegal immigration have been rescinded. Unenforced borders are an invitation to terrorism, and drugs, and are intended to change elections in the near-term, and erase America’s separate existence in the long term.

Progressives, who vociferously advocate trillions of dollars of additional spending the U.S. cannot afford, this year pushed the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to 134 percent, well above the World Bank’s 77 percent redline, contributing to record-breaking inflation, deficits, and interest rate hikes that can hobble the economy. Elizabeth Warren advocates taxing unrealized gains, while other progressives more simply want to increase rates on upper incomes. Both would destabilize the economy and shift investments out of the United States.

The left’s obsession with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has, as its avowed goal, supplanted expertise, and merit with socially engineered outcomes based on race, gender identity, and sexual orientation. It is axiomatic that this will reduce productivity and prosperity, and provoke racial division. As Kendi concedes, DEI is intended to dismantle capitalism.

Polls show that most people support the rights of adults to make decisions about their bodies. But, after years of promoting the transgender and nonbinary ethos, including an all-out push by the Biden administration, recent Pew and Gallup polls found that just 0.6 percent to 0.7 percent of adult Americans identify as transgender, and another one percent as nonbinary, including pre-ops who might never transition. Gallup found that just 7.1 percent of U.S. adults identify as other than heterosexual.

Numerous recent polls commissioned by liberal Democrat organizations show that Americans reject the progressive effort to replace biological sex with the concept of “identification,” and favor banning the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity to children in kindergarten through third grade (see here and here). Progressives have abused about one million post-op transgenders as pretext to destroy girls’ sports and humiliate women as menstruating and birthing persons (it is unclear how these terms apply to post-menopausal women, or adoptive mothers). Transferring power over children to the state and destroying nuclear families and religion are long-standing Marxist objectives.

Whether it’s Homeland Security’s suspended Disinformation Board, forcing out non-compliant teachersuniversity professorseditors, Sharon Osbourne, or comedians, trying to fire Joe Rogan, or fining football coaches for questioning orthodoxy, the left is aggressively punishing those who do not adhere to its dogma.

The riots immediately after George Floyd’s death cost more than $2 billion in property damage and as many as 30 deaths. Those losses continue to grow. Yet, Democrats, including Attorney General Merrick Garland, refuse to condemn or prosecute left-wing protestors who violate federal law, and often encourage their protests. Just a few weeks after Garland commenced a counter-terrorism investigation of parents who disagree with liberal school boards, and as the Justice Department continued to lock up January 6 bystanders, Garland rejected guilty pleas offered by two left-wing lawyers accused of terrorism for distributing and using Molotov cocktails in Manhattan. He instead offered them a lenient plea to a lesser charge.

The progressive rebuttal is Donald Trump, January 6, Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and Donald Trump (again).

Progressives are winning the battle of ideas through their control of education, most entertainment, technology, and media companies, and professional organizations, and the acquiescence of many institutional investors and public corporations. The occasional mainstream win in Virginia, San Francisco, or at the Supreme Court, will not change the trajectory. If anger over transitory vexations like Donald Trump and January 6, important though they may be, prevents centrists and traditional conservatives from recognizing the asymmetric significance of the alternatives, the siege on American values, freedoms, and leadership will inevitably prevail.

In less than 100 days, we can start changing course, but only if Trump supporters, anti-Trumpers, and never-Trumpers channel their anger to achieve a productive result.


This article was published by The American Mind and is reproduced with permission.

The Thesis That Drove American Politics Crazy: The Emerging Democratic Majority

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

In 2002, President George W. Bush stood astride the postSeptember 11 political world and Republicans looked poised to do the unthinkable and strengthen their positions in Congress in a midterm year. Yet liberal scholars John Judis and Ruy Teixeira published a provocative thesis: A new Democratic majority would “emerge” by the end of the decade. Traditional middle-class and working-class Democrats would be joined by growing ethnic minority populations, especially Asians and Hispanics; by working, single, and highly educated women voters; and by a growing share of the professional class, paving the way for a new majority. After President Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012, the thesis seemed airtight and its guidance likely to live long after the decadal horizon its authors had adopted. Except, just after the majority “emerged,” it started to crack. Judis observed surprising resilience in the Republican coalition and Republican strength with middle-class voters in the 2014 midterm elections, presaging the shocking election of President Donald Trump in 2016. By 2022, Judis and Teixeira’s “emerging majority” appears tottering, with Teixeira himself, a self-described “social democrat,” departing the Democratic establishmentaligned Center for American Progress for the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, in part because of institutional liberalism’s “relentless focus on race, gender, and identity.” But where stands The Emerging Democratic Majority at 20? How correct were its predictions, and can one find the seeds of the emerging majority’s demise in the book that declared it?


The year 2002 was not a good year to be a Democrat. George W. Bush had been elected president two years before and boasted stratospheric approval ratings thanks to the apparently successful military response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Democrats had broken the Republican federal trifecta Bush carried into office—the first Republican federal trifecta since the Eisenhower administration—after the defection to the Democratic caucus of liberal ex-Republican Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords (I) but had to defend seats in states Bush had won. Making matters worse, charismatic left-progressive champion Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) was killed in a plane crash while campaigning within two weeks of Election Day. And the midterm House elections were shaping up very differently than the usual midterms in which the president’s party typically loses seats: The GOP always looked likely to hold its majority with the potential to grow it.

These dynamics, and the hangover from their victory over Al Gore—popular President Bill Clinton’s Vice President—had Republicans and conservative commentators like Bush’s political consultant Karl Rove and Almanac of American Politics author Michael Barone speculating about the possibilities for a new, lasting Republican majority. Democrats had not won a majority of the national presidential vote since 1976, and in 1994, Republicans had broken the Democrats’ 40-year hammerlock on the U.S. House of Representatives. The Grand Old Party was riding high.

But amid this Republican ascendancy, two liberal scholars—New Republic editor John Judis and Century Foundation fellow Ruy Teixeira—published a provocative thesis backed by data: A new majority was on the cusp of power, but it would be Democratic, not Republican. In their imaginatively named The Emerging Democratic Majority, Judis and Teixeira argued that the country was on the cusp of a transition from an industrial economy focused on suburban-urban and black-white divides with residual Protestant values to a postindustrial economy focused on “ideopolises” with secular-progressive values and a commitment to racial equality. That transition would grow the numbers of single women, immigrants, and professionals in the economy and, tantalizingly for the down-on-their-luck Democrats, the electorate would swing left. The old Democrats in organized labor, the white working classes, and African American communities would join with the “women’s movement,” immigrants, and professional workers to advance a new “progressive centrism” of secular values, abortion access, regulation of business, and a stronger welfare state.

While Bush’s Republicans won in 2002 (and 2004), the elections of 2006, 2008, and 2012 seemed to confirm Judis and Teixeira’s thesis in the main. Barack Obama’s Democrats dominated the Pacific Northwest, New England, the industrial Midwest, and the mid-Atlantic, as the “emerging majority” thesis predicted. Hispanic voters seemed to have moved Florida, Colorado, and Nevada firmly into the Democratic column while progressive professionals joined the traditional party base of liberal black Americans to turn Virginia blue and make North Carolina highly competitive.

While Texas, Arizona, and Georgia’s turns to the left were a bit beyond the decadal time horizon that The Emerging Democratic Majority took, liberal commentators could not help but note the same demographic dynamics that delivered Virginia and Colorado to the “rising American electorate” would deliver them to Obama’s successors. The GOP split harshly between a professional consultant-and-commentariat class that proposed liberal immigration reform as a desperate rearguard action to stem losses with Hispanic Americans and a populist activist-and-entertainer class that demanded the party double down on restrictionism. Liberals chortled at Republicans’ apparent no-win scenario, and the Democracy Alliance funded ethnicity-based and other identity-based outreach efforts to the New American Majority to whom the future belonged.

But even during the headiest days of the Obama era, there were skeptics of an emerging Democratic majority. Sean Trende, a political analyst with RealClearPolitics and the American Enterprise Institute, was perhaps the most prominent. His work, both at RCP and in his book The Lost Majority, questioned some of Judis and Teixeira’s key implicit and explicit assumptions like time-cyclical realignment theory, a high floor for Democrats with white voters, and the primacy of liberal immigration as a motivation issue for Latino and Asian voters. Most important for this counterthesis is the idea that American elections are driven by contingency—that is, in the possibly apocryphal words of British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, by “Events, my dear boy, events.”

By 2015, the results of the midterm elections of Obama’s presidency in 2010 and 2014 were impossible for Judis to ignore. Building off the unexpected election of Gov. Larry Hogan (R) in his home state of Maryland, he warned that, at least at the sub-presidential level, the “Democratic advantage of several years ago is gone.”

Two years later, the country inaugurated a Republican president who had done almost everything the emerging majority thesis, even as modified by Judis in his 2015 writing, would suggest was not how to win a presidential election. Donald Trump ran a campaign based on his belligerent persona, celebrity appeal to the white middle and working classes, and populist opposition to liberal trade agreements and illegal immigration. Trende would be left to write a post-mortem, deeming the emerging Democratic majority a liberal “God That Failed,” whose prescription of Clintonite progressive centrism had been superseded in political minds by a teleological assumption that capital-D Demographics would drive the Party of Jackson into near-permanent power.

In 2020, amid what may have been the worst political environment for an incumbent president since Herbert Hoover’s landslide loss in 1932, President Donald Trump lost the Electoral College by a combined 43,000 or so votes in three states. But even in defeat, Trump buried the emerging Democratic majority, perhaps to an even greater degree than he had in victory. Hispanics, especially in the overwhelmingly Mexican American Rio Grande Valley and the largely Cuban- and South American-descended portions of South Florida, swung firmly to the Party of Lincoln. Two Asian American Republicans joined Congress from districts in heavily Asian American Orange County, California. And the white working-class redoubt of Iowa, which Judis and Teixeira predicted would help anchor a Democratic majority, stayed staunchly Republican.

Whatever the new, likely fleeting, majority Joe Biden’s Democrats enjoy is, it is not the one that Judis and Teixeira predicted would “become the majority party of the early twenty-first century.” Emblematic of the Democratic Party’s departure from the “progressive centrism” the book espoused is Teixeira’s departure from the Democratic establishment–aligned Center for American Progress to the center-right American Enterprise Institute in July 2022 as he expressed increasing alarm at the Democratic Party’s deteriorating position with working-class and middle-class ethnic minorities.

Nothing in the rise and fall of the emerging Democratic majority suggests a Republican majority is inevitable: As anyone who lived through 2020 should know, events prevail over all political theories. But it is a warning against both hubris in the certainty of future victory and against despair at the prospect of future defeats. The political future, like the future of all things, remains unwritten.


This article was published by Capital Research and is reproduced with permission.


The GOP Has a Big Ego Problem

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

It has always been a marvel how the Democrats pull together. They may fight among themselves, but they see themselves as change agents. They tend to subdue their differences and work for long-term goals of bringing socialism to America. It has been a 70-year project and they are winning.

More than 50 years ago when I was active in conservative campus politics, getting conservatives and, even worse, libertarians, to get anything done was almost impossible. It seemed like everyone wanted to do it their way. It may be a shop-worn phrase, but it is completely applicable. Conservatives are like herding cats.

Perhaps the difference is that Democrats and progressives are collectivist by nature, and therefore following the group is easier for them. Conservatives tend to admire individualism and like to be contrary. However, disproportionately conservatives have served in the military, and there, they seem to have no problem understanding discipline. In a war, it is necessary.

Why is this important?

While polling data is sketchy and still controlled largely by corporate media which can shade the way questions are phrased and the data subsequentially interpreted, it appears that despite widespread disdain for Biden, the coming election may not be a red wave at all. Local races do not seem to attach themselves well to national discontent.

One side suggests that Trump supporters, which have largely taken over the party in some states, have put forth an inferior slate of candidates. Much of the blame for this is blamed on Trump himself, who injected himself into the primary process and thereby allowing reflexive loyalties to short circuit the selection process. We expressed concern about this ourselves.

Trump in a sense does not help either. My phone is constantly pinging with messages such as “the Establishment hates Trump.  They raided his home!”

It is not that these contentions are not true. They are. But it is all about HIM. It is all about Trump, what he is saying, what he is doing, and what is being done to him. If the MAGA movement is going to succeed, it has to be more than being about just Trump. It is going to have to be about issues, principles, and about solutions.

The American people are looking for common sense solutions. The Democrats are wrecking the country, our liberty, and our standard of living. Not much is required of conservatives other than appearing reasonable. 

Others contend it is the views of the new crop of candidates. Buying heavily into criticism from leftist media outlets like the New York Times, some Republicans see their fellow party members as fringe or nutty on most issues.  Nutty for them means questioning election results and procedures.

Also, big business is getting comfortable with crony capitalism, and much of the Chamber of Commerce type of Republican now feels more comfortable with Democrat policies. It is no longer just defense contractors. It is healthcare monopolies, auto companies, social media monopolies, and utilities that get huge amounts of taxpayer dollars. They like the cheap labor from illegal immigration and they like trading with the Chinese, even when their client or manufacturing partner runs concentration camps and kills their own people for organ harvesting. They happily do this with a high ESG score.

Interestingly, most of these critics don’t see the border as an issue, don’t understand the threat of Red China, don’t care much about the deficit, and can’t muster much opposition to wokeness.

Many of the MAGA candidates are attractive, and unlike much of the party establishment that gave us McCain and Romney, these candidates are willing to fight. And it is worth pointing out, that many of these “inferior candidates” were chosen fairly in primary elections.

It would seem the Never-Trumpers have a problem with projection. While accusing Trump of making it all about him, they want to make the race all about them. Can we really say that Trump’s ego is worse than say Liz Cheney’s? Reportedly, after taking a thunderous loss among her constituents in Wyoming, she is already out raising money to run for a presidential run.  She wants to run against election deniers.  Does that mean she will run against every Democrat that questioned 2016?

Or how about the ego of Mitch McConnell?

The goal should be to elect as a conservative candidates as possible. And if the conservative candidate does not dot every i and crosses every t for you, suck it up and support the conservative who was chosen. You had your shot in the primary and lost.

But we can’t win if a substantial part of the party does not see the validity in the choices made by voters in a primary election. It seems that some individuals who see a constant “danger to our democracy” haven’t noticed that MAGA candidates were chosen in the democratic process. Who is the danger to democracy here?

For example, in the Arizona gubernatorial race, Kari Lake was outspent 5 to 1, yet she won every county in the state.

She is the party choice. Whatever nuanced differences one may have with her, she is an attractive, articulate, conservative candidate. Bury your differences and get behind her or you are going to get the radical progressive Democrat in the name of Katie Hobbs.

The same can be said about Blake Masters. Not only is the state in play with this choice, but so is control of the U.S. Senate.

It is clear that conservatives and Republicans need to grow up. The differences among us are minor compared to the threat posed by the Democrats, who now have been captured almost entirely by the radical left.

It is time to dig into your pockets and put your money where your mouth is. It is also time to volunteer and get to work to be sure this window of national discontent is not blown by petty intra-party feuds and oversized egos.

Yes, Trump has an oversized ego. It is doubtful that as an outsider, he could have achieved what he did without it. But most of his opponents also have oversized egos.  Importantly though, this race is not directly about Trump – it is about the advancing candidates for state and national positions against an extremely well-funded and cunning opposition.

We don’t have the media, the universities, professional philanthropy, Hollywood, or the big corporations on our side. All we have is each other. It is time to circle the wagons and fight. We lose not because of the Democrats but because we couldn’t pull together.



Our Elitist Environmental Experts Are Driving Us Over The Cliff

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Leftist thought leaders insist that we are facing an environmental holocaust unless we immediately drastically reduce carbon emissions.

Yet it’s curious. The governing and influence elites demand massive societal sacrifice, while they are apparently not concerned enough to alter their own extravagant lifestyles. They own multiple sumptuous homes, cars, and yachts. They fly individual private jets to their annual meetings in Davos, Switzerland where they assure each other it is their solemn responsibility to save the rest of us from ourselves.

They refuse to engage in thoughtful debate of any notions that challenge their woke orthodoxy. Instead, those advocating ideas different from their own are dismissed as “climate deniers“.

Take electric vehicles. EVs are touted by enviros as the obvious antidote to carbon-belching SUVs. But they aren’t.

Fossil fuels produce most of their electricity. The manufacture and disposal of batteries and the rare metals required have significant environmental impacts. A growing consensus now acknowledges that EVs may produce more net carbon emissions than today’s cleaner-burning gasoline cars.

You would think anyone with genuine concern about the environment might reconsider EV policy. But they don’t engage. Instead, they soldier on, funding yet more subsidies, benefits and charging stations. Taxpayers get dinged for billions with no discernible benefit.

Clearly, to these decision-makers, climate change isn’t about climate, it’s about power. Egomaniacal persons of all stripes throughout history have had the unquenchable desire to control the lives of others and operate the world from their centers of power. Think Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Gates, Zuckerberg – make your own list.

One irony is that the consequences of rising temperatures may not be that harmful. According to Swedish economist Bjorn Lomborg, the Swedish economist, higher temperatures are far less harmful than lower ones.

500,000 people worldwide die annually from heat-related causes, while 4.5 million die from cold. Over the last decade or so, rising temperatures have caused 116,000 more heat deaths yearly, but also 283,000 fewer cold-related deaths per year. How many hysterical accounts of coming devastation would you have to read to learn that?

It’s not the heat but the political responses to climate change that are causing real harm. Low-cost synthetic fertilizer is an innovation that has greatly enhanced our ability to feed the world. Because it is made from natural gas, climate activists have limited its use, even though 1 billion people worldwide are facing the imminent threat of starvation.

Other pressing needs have been drowned out by the insistence on prioritizing climate change. Recent increases in energy prices were exacerbated by Biden’s self-proclaimed war on fossil fuels.  Europe’s refusal to capitalize on its shale reserves and their shunning of nuclear power also resulted in higher energy prices and lower security, as do subsidies of solar and wind, which are still not substantial, reliable suppliers to the electrical grid.

The costs of climate activism will be even higher if governments seriously pursue their stated aim of producing net zero emissions by 2050. The truth is that climate is a global problem.  With our current technologies and geopolitical realities (i.e. China) such goals are simply not attainable.

But the price for such climate grandstanding would be $5 trillion per year for 30 years according to McKinsey. Every single American would have to pay $5000 per year to achieve even 80% of the goal by mid-century.

Ordinary citizens are getting fed up with these elitist obsessions. Polls show climate change far down the list of Americans’ concerns.

40,000 Dutch farmers recently held a mass protest against government mandates that nitrogen -oxide and ammonia emissions, produced by livestock, be reduced by 80%. The government of Sri Lanka resigned after a ban on synthetic fertilizers decimated food production and the economy collapsed

Remember, we’re only in the early phases of the alarmists’ grand plans to re-order society. Already, California and other areas, possibly including Arizona, are facing the threat of rolling blackouts. An EU official recently warned that millions of Europeans may not be able to heat their homes this winter.

Climate change is manageable through mitigation and innovation. The fabulously expensive, impractical nostrums being pushed by our self-appointed experts are a recipe for human suffering and chaos.


Thomas C. Patterson, MD is a retired Emergency Medicine physician, Arizona state Senator and Arizona Senate Majority Leader in the ’90s. He is a former Chairman, Goldwater Institute.


Left-Wing Group Bribes Abortion Radicals With Stipends For Participating In Intimidation Protests At Justices’ Homes

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Editors’ Note: Although this article describes events that commenced a week ago, the events are ongoing and profile the extreme and unlawful activities of the radical left and abortion extremists. Despite the federal statute that makes the attempted intimidation of judges with pending decisions a punishable crime, the U.S. Department of Justice and the President of the United States have ignored these actions and are therefore complicit by their failure to uphold the law. Many consider these events a slow-motion insurrection by the radical left against the most fundamental aspects of our Republic.


A left-wing group is gathering abortion activists to march at Supreme Court justices’ homes next week, with stipends available for some protesters who participate in the Roe v. Wade crusade.

Beginning on Sunday [5/8], the group organized under the moniker “Ruth Sent Us” will embark on a week-long demonstration, with plans to protest outside the homes of the six conservative Supreme Court justices, whose alleged addresses have been published on the group’s website.

The protests come on the heels of a leaked February draft ruling in which five out of six conservative judges concurred, with the majority draft opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito to overturn Roe v. Wade. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch each reportedly joined the opinion, with Chief Justice John Roberts remaining undecided.

The leaked opinion only offers a snapshot in time of the justices’ thinking, however, with members of the bench still able to change their minds before the final ruling is published this summer. Roberts’ home remains a target for protesters who aim to intimidate justices into safeguarding the nearly 50-year-old precedent ensuring abortion access.

The leaked opinion, apparently intended to foment public unrest in support of the 1973 landmark case, has already successfully galvanized abortion advocates who staged protests at the Supreme Court this week and in New York City. In Los Angeles, demonstrations quickly turned into violence reminiscent of 2020 when protesters clashed with police. Law enforcement erected non-scalable fencing around the Supreme Court building ahead of more protests.

Demonstrators with “Ruth Sent Us” appear to be coordinating with several allied activist groups including Code Pink, Kavanaugh Off Our Court, and Black Lives Matter. While the website advertises “peaceful protests,” the recent memories of Black Lives Matter riots terrorizing the country remain fresh in the minds of the public as communities are still rebuilding. This week’s violence in Los Angeles offers little comfort.

Harassment of conservative policymakers at their private homes has become an increasingly popular tactic among left-wing activists, who demonstrated at Kavanaugh’s home in September over anxieties related to Roe v. Wade. Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley and Fox News prime-time anchor Tucker Carlson have each also suffered from protesters staking out their D.C.-area residences.


This article was published in The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

The Coming Campaign Deception

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

I gravely dislike our constant campaign mode democracy. As soon as we finish a presidential election talk begins about the opposition party’s candidate four years hence. As soon as a member of Congress gets installed, they start raising money for the next election cycle. Incumbent senators squirrel away millions significantly in advance of their six-year term ending. Often this leads to deceptions. This 2022 campaign is unique in that it will be filled with deceptions that have been made public and intentional.

Every campaign has its deceptions. The last presidential election was chock full of them. Opponents of Donald Trump believe nothing he says. On the other hand, the prime deception in 2020 centered around the Hunter Biden laptop. Fifty-one “intelligence community experts” were touted by Joe Biden to state that the evidence was “Russian disinformation.” Sixteen months later the New York Times fessed up that its fellow New York paper – The Post –was accurate in reporting the Hunter Biden story that likely would have turned the election.

This round of elections is distinct. After 15 months of the Biden presidency, his poll numbers are in the toilet. The issues of inflation, crime, homelessness, and more have the Democrats on their heels, attempting to figure out how they survive a projected bloodbath. Representative Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) chair, did what politicos do today – commission a poll. The poll told him some fascinating facts about his party and determined his strategy for the November elections — a political lifetime from now.

The research found that Democrats are “preachy, judgmental and focused on culture wars.” Nothing of that is shocking except for them being judgmental. It used to be the hippie set of the Left that believed in “live and let live.” The new Left wants to tell you what to believe and when to believe it. We all know what happens when they do not agree with you. They do not just disagree; they want to dismember you or at minimum, they want to suppress what you say and don’t want to hear your thoughts.

The poll also found that the political arguments by the opposition focused on public safety (crime), critical race theory and the related issue of parental rights in the educational system are as the pollsters characterized “alarmingly potent.”

Maloney wants to go on the offensive which makes political sense. He wants them to argue for support of the police, against open borders and/or amnesty and focus on issues of border safety. This is where the deception comes into play.

The Democrats can mouth all these policies like they are in support of police, but no one is going to believe them. Already 80% of self-identified swing voters in competitive districts believe Democrats want to defund the police. There is only one way to reverse that perception and it is not campaign ads where a Congressional candidate is shaking hands with a cop. It is for them to not only sponsor legislation to reverse their naïve post-George Floyd actions but to get the legislation passed.

Another action is to come out in favor of recalling these criminal DAs who refuse to enforce the laws they were elected to administer. The problem is that none of this is going to happen because the Democrats believe in the policies that the voters gravely dislike.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that “My purpose right now is to just win the midterm elections. Nothing less is at stake than our democracy.” Pelosi added, “Our party is unified in its empathy for America’s working families.” These are the kind of platitudes that will resonate with the American people in an unintended manner. They confirm that the Democrats are clueless about the real issues facing their constituents and that their leader and their team are out of touch with middle America. Additionally, if the Congressional Democrats are voted out in November and the Republicans are put in charge, Ms. Pelosi stated that the democratic act is a threat to our democracy. That is an interesting take from the third most powerful person in our country.

Another thing Mr. Maloney will argue is that the Democrats nominate people who believe in the police and lawfully enforced borders against a flood of illegal aliens. The problem is that they will be such a minority in the Democrat Congressional caucus that they will be rolled once again to support policies that contradict those beliefs. We have seen this movie before where the so-called moderate Democrats end up as cannon fodder for the party leaders.

My suggestion is to evaluate which party believes in enforcing criminal laws, controlling our Southern border, supporting legal immigration, ensuring parents have a right to know what is being taught to their children in public schools, or better yet, they should be able to choose to go to another school. Then vote for those candidates.

Please do not fall for Mr. Maloney’s planned campaign misrepresentations. You will end up with the same mess we currently have.


This article was published in Flash Report and is reproduced with permission from the author.

They Won; He Did Not

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Editors’ Note: Some issues can be nuanced, some can’t. You either believe in limited government, balanced budgets, energy independence, strong defense, secure borders, or you believe in big government often run by the unconstitutional administrative state, constant deficit spending financed with printed money, banning fossil fuels and nuclear energy, open borders, and a weak defense posture. There is not a particular “middle of the road” position available on many of these issues. One must take a stand. On others, there can be a compromise. Brooks and others like him are so concerned about the tone of Tweets, they can’t seem to look at actions and actual policy positions. Brooks and others blame Conservatism for “changing” because the Trumpian version actually fought back and held to principle. The default position for conservatives since Reagan has been defeat, and many of us are frankly tired of that. Maybe Brooks and others are just too weak to take a stand? Or, maybe they never really were Conservatives. Once during a heated debate concerning an issue where compromise was difficult, we overheard an old political hand who wryly observed “the only thing you find in the middle of the road is either a yellow line or a dead skunk.”  

David Brooks had a rich pedigree on the conservative side of the ledger. He worked at the National Review, Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, and The Weekly Standard. I ran into Bill Kristol and Brooks in 2003. Kristol crowed about how Brooks had just accepted a position at the New York Times. I congratulated him and stated, “It will be interesting to see whether you change them, or they change you.” We just got the final confirmation.

Brooks has a lengthy piece in the Atlantic entitled What Happened to American Conservatism? speaking to the history of his political perspective.

The fact this was published in the Atlantic tells one about everything you would expect regarding what he wrote. The publication was founded in 1857 and was originally the Atlantic Monthly. Times change and so has the publication. Current editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg has completed the transformation to a far-left rag that gives authors plenty of space to pontificate on their left-wing theories.

Brooks has authored some enlightening books on our society, but that was before his transformation. He wrote with great clarity then, but this lengthy piece was frequently muddled. It took some inner strength to get through the entire piece (which was semi-autobiographical) as he wrote about his transformation from a socialist to calling himself a conservative and to his current position.

Brooks wrote “What passes for ‘conservatism’ now however is nearly the opposite of Burkean conservatism I encountered then. Today, what passes for the worldview of the ‘the right’ is a set of resentful animosities, a partisan attachment to Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson, a sort of mental brutalism. The rich philosophical perspective that dazzled me then has been reduced to Fox News and voter suppression.”

Here is where I divorced myself from Brooks. That statement and the rest of his commentary are puffery. I have devoted my public existence to public policy. Tangible results. That radiates from my Jewish training of being more concerned about what people do than what they say. Who was not offended by the stupidity of many things emitted from President Trump’s mouth? But what he did was far more important.

Mr. Brooks, would you rather have Trump’s lawful enforcement of our immigration laws along our southern border or President Biden’s lawless trafficking of illegal aliens throughout our country in the dark of night and then lying about it? Would you rather have Mr. Trump’s policies that brought us to energy independence or Biden’s ridiculous policies that forced a two million barrel a day reduction of oil production and a public pleading for the Saudis to increase their oil production after soaring energy prices crushed the family budgets of average Americans?

Brooks objects to the changes of conservatism but never does a deep dive into a policy issue. He even does a bumper shot. Along with his separation from conservatives, today is his divorce from his Jewish heritage that people’s actions are more important than their intangible platitudes.

Near the end of this fifteen-page piece, Brooks gets to the heart of his grievances after pontificating for pages and showing how intellectually capable he is by delivering a sure sign of his shift political – vague commentary. He hates Donald Trump. He makes the staggering statement that conservatives (which he views as any supporter of Trump) “need to treat half the country, metropolitan America as moral cancer.” Really, Mr. Brooks — did you skip where Hillary made her famous statement about “a basket of deplorables” which has not been disavowed by the Democrats?

Would you rather live in the exurbs or rural America today or with the rampant lawlessness and acceptance of homelessness strewn across our major cities?

Brooks’ crescendo is this statement: “I’m content to plant myself instead on the rightward edge of the leftward tendency – in the more promising soil of the moderate wing of the Democratic Party.” When I started the Republican Jewish Coalition in Los Angeles I was often asked if we held our meetings in a phone booth. Mr. Brooks can certainly, absolutely, definitively hold his meeting of the moderate wing of the Democrats in a Mini Cooper.

It is certainly conceivable for anyone to change their political position. There is the famous statement attributed to many historic people in many versions: “If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain.” Mr. Brooks may have changed his perspective over his life. To claim that the entire philosophical movement of conservatism has melted in front of him is audacious and egotistical. To deny how “moderate” Democrats have been run over by Leftists in their party is incredulous for such a knowledgeable individual.

There is no doubt we have a full and complete answer from 19 years ago. The Left changed Brooks, but he has not made a dent in them.


This article was published in Flash Report and is reproduced with permission from the author.