YOU CAN’T ERASE WOKE. This political season, like the last couple, has featured Democratic candidates not only running for office but running away from things they said from 2019 to 2021.

The latest is Francesca Hong, the somewhat loopy front-runner for the Democratic nomination for governor of Wisconsin. In the last few days, Hong has walked back her 2020 call to “cancel Thanksgiving” so the nation can “stop celebrating colonialism.” She has also backed off her 2019 and 2021 calls to “defund then abolish” the police. And she no longer stands by her 2021 call to “abolish the Senate,” which she made when she was angry that senators did not convict President Donald Trump in his second impeachment.

Hong spent the weekend before the primary shrugging off her not-so-old outrageous statements. “I had some hot takes, some bad takes on Twitter,” she told reporters. “But I’ve evolved, I’ve learned. I think it’s more dishonest not to learn.”

Hong did not address a more fundamental question: Isn’t it a problem that she ever believed those things? Hong was in her early 30s when she expressed the views listed above. Now approaching 40, she has been slow to back away from them, and only under pressure. Isn’t that a problem?

The progressive answer to that question came over the weekend from far-left superstar Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). “I have a local city councilman that has this saying: Woke 1 was crazy,” she said with a laugh on ABC News’s This Week Sunday. “And I think that what’s important is that we have to assess what a candidate is saying now.”

That is what Ocasio-Cortez wants, and what Hong wants, and what lots of other socialists and progressives want, but it is fortunately not the way the political system works. Things a candidate has said in the past, especially in the recent past, mean something. They should face questions about them.

Graham Platner, who won the Democratic nomination for Senate in Maine, had a ton of social media posts to run away from. None of them forced him out of the race; that happened only after he was accused of sexual assault. In Michigan, Abdul el Sayed, or Abdulrahman Mohamed el Sayed, as Republicans call him, also had a lot of posts to live down — which he successfully did, winning the Democratic nomination for Senate.

Neither candidate faced a particularly adversarial press when it came to those old posts. They were running in Democratic primaries where there were less likely to be impassioned arguments about such views. For el Sayed, and for Hong if she wins, the situation will be different in the general election campaign, where they will be running against Republicans who will be more than happy to point out their statements from a few years ago.

Kamala Harris got to experience that in the 2024 presidential race. Remember that Harris ran for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president. She was a terrible candidate and dropped out in December 2019. But she left a record of ridiculous comments that came back to haunt her in 2024.

“If there was a bad idea, she embraced it,” this newsletter noted earlier this year. “Green New Deal, Medicare for all, mandatory assault weapon buybacks, amnesty — the whole lot. (Harris also said she was ‘open’ to the idea of packing the Supreme Court.)”

Then there was the legendary moment in the 2024 presidential debate in which Trump accused Harris of “wanting to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison.” Some Harris supporters reacted with outrage — surely Trump was making up a crazy charge like that! But no, Trump was correct. Harris had actually made the pledge in writing in a 2019 questionnaire for the American Civil Liberties Union. Her views from five years earlier hurt her a lot in 2024.

Now, Ocasio-Cortez says the important thing is “to assess what a candidate is saying now.” But why not take what that candidate said just a few years ago into account? “I don’t love this idea that nothing anyone said or did in 2019-2020 counts,” tweeted left-leaning writer Matthew Yglesias. “Like it’s fine as a sociological observation, but I want political leaders who keep their heads even in the face of dumb fads.”

Francesca Hong did not do that. Abdul el Sayed did not do that. Kamala Harris did not do that. And woke was indeed crazy. So now, it’s entirely reasonable for voters to ask why those candidates believed it so fervently.

Byron York, The Washington Examiner

Jasmine Crockett recently repeated a familiar talking point: that black women are the most educated demographic in America. However, this false claim is not supported by the data. Yet it continues to circulate in political discourse because it serves a psychological need rather than an empirical one. According to the Postsecondary National Policy Institute, Asian and white women hold bachelor’s degrees at higher rates than black women. Hence, black women are not the most educated group in the country. The statistic that black women are the most educated relies on selective interpretations of enrollment data among narrow age cohorts. It does not reflect overall degree attainment. But the media and political class refuse to correct this error because they are afraid of offending a powerful voting bloc.

This indulgence does not help black women. It gives them an inflated sense of their own standing. When you tell a group they are the best, they begin to believe it. They begin to expect rewards and recognition that their actual qualifications do not command. This is delusion, rather than empowerment. And delusion is a poor foundation for economic success.

Black women are exceptional only in comparison to black men. Thirty-eight percent of black women hold a college degree. Twenty-six percent of black men hold one. That gap is real. But it is a narrow achievement. Historically, black women have had lower unemployment rates than black men, with 1987 and 1998 being notable exceptions. Outperforming black men is not the same as outperforming the broader population. It is a low bar. Celebrating it as a major victory only obscures how far black women lag behind other groups in income, wealth, and occupational prestige.

Furthermore, the degrees black women earn are not evenly distributed across high-value fields. Black students are less likely to be represented in high-paying STEM majors. Black women disproportionately graduate with degrees in sociology, social work, and health administration services. These credentials do not command the same premiums in the labor market as engineering or computer science. A sociology degree does not make you competitive in a global economy. It makes you dependent on institutions that value compliance over output. The labor market does not reward good intentions. It rewards specialized skills. Black women have fewer of those skills than their Asian and white counterparts. This disparity is reflected in wage data and employment patterns.

Many black women are now furious because the Trump administration is downsizing the federal government and clamping down on DEI initiatives. They see these moves as attacks on their livelihood. They are correct that these policies will cost them jobs. But they are wrong to frame this as an injustice. Working for the government is often an indication that you lack specific skills the market values. Federal employment is a shelter from competition. When that subsidy ends, the protected are exposed.

Furthermore, the public sector is less productive than the private sector. The Bureau of Labor Statistics used to provide productivity metrics for the private sector until this practice was discontinued in 1994. Up until that time, the government consistently trailed private industry. Government work prioritizes process over results and rewards longevity over performance. Black women have been major beneficiaries of this system. They have filled administrative and compliance roles that would not exist in a leaner, more competitive environment. This is not a testament to their talent. It is a testament to their positioning within a bloated bureaucracy.

Similarly, a study by Jason Richwine shows that government workers work three fewer hours per week than private sector employees and one fewer month per year than their private sector counterparts. So, if black women are as talented as their advocates claim, why have they not made the federal government more productive? Why has the administrative state remained sluggish and inefficient despite decades of black female presence in its ranks? The answer is simple. The talent was never there. The narrative was the product of political convenience, not objective performance.

If black women truly possess the extraordinary capabilities attributed to them, they should have no problem optimizing their expertise in the private sector. The private sector rewards results. It does not care about historical grievances. It cares about output. If black women can deliver that output, they will thrive. If they cannot, they will struggle. The current panic over federal layoffs and DEI rollbacks suggests that many black women are not confident in their ability to compete without protective barriers. They should be. But they are not. And that silence speaks louder than any rallying cry.

The truth is uncomfortable. Black women are not the most educated demographic. They have been sheltered by government employment and protected by corporate diversity mandates. Those shelters are now collapsing. Instead of demanding that the world change to accommodate their inflated self-image, black women should ask themselves why they cannot compete in the open market. The answer is not racism. The answer is skill. Or rather, the lack of it. That is the conversation no one wants to have. But it is the only one that matters.

This brings us to the final piece of the puzzle. For some time now, Christopher Rufo has been publishing features exposing black women in academia who commit fraud. Claudine Gay, the former president of Harvard, was forced to resign after Rufo documented extensive plagiarism in her dissertation and other published works. Sherri Charleston, Harvard’s chief diversity officer, faced similar allegations. More recently, Kerri K. Greenidge has retired from her post at Tufts because her book The Grimkes has been exposed as containing fabrications and egregious errors. Probably, if black women are twice as good at achieving anything, perhaps it is academic fraud.

===============================================================

About Lipton Matthews

Lipton Matthews is a researcher and podcaster. He is a regular contributor to American Greatness. In addition, his work has been featured in Mises, The Federalist, Chronicles, American Thinker, Epoch Times, and other publications. He is also author of Busting African Delusions: Institutions, Human Capital, and the Path to Progress. He can be reached at lo_matthews@yahoo.com.

Hasan Piker has emerged as an unofficial spokesman for the Democratic Socialists of America’s political network. He campaigned for for Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong while cultivating close ties with socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Hasan Piker said that America deserved 9/11, he has called for destroying the White race, he encouraged the killing of capitalist property owners, he made racist remarks about Black and Asian people, and more.

He is a Muslim man who was born in Instanbul, Turkey to a wealthy family. He is the nephew of leftist commentator Cenk Uygur, the co-founder of The Young Turks. He opposes Israel.

Piker campaigned for Abdul El-Sayed, who recently won the primary election despite nearly $70 million being spent against him by AIPAC, other Jewish lobbies and corporate interests. It was the most expensive primary election in history. Abdul El-Sayed has been defending Piker despite his past offensive statements.

Marxist streamer Hasan Piker has emerged as an increasingly visible, if unofficial, spokesman for the Democratic Socialists of America’s rapidly expanding political action network. He campaigned for Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong while cultivating close ties with socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

From an electoral-risk perspective, Piker is becoming a liability for Democrats. His far-left, anti-American rhetoric provides Republicans with what we called “a gift” last week. Even Hillary Clinton warned on Friday that the GOP’s “anti-communist messaging is very effective.”

The Democratic Party’s failure to formally denounce Piker and distance itself from his agenda…

Piker calls on his followers to “kill capitalists”:

Piker: “We want more immigrants to come into your countries and then they’re gonna f*** your sisters and then your daughters. We’re here to destroy the White Race, B—h.”

Piker: “Overall, my favorite flag is Hezbollah.”

Piker: “America deserved 9/11. I do not support the United States of America.”

Piker: “I don’t have any sort of patriotism in my heart for America.”

…deserves considerable scrutiny.

Piker’s close proximity to DSA-aligned candidates, combined with anti-American rhetoric and revolutionary Marxism that is hostile to America’s political and capitalist system, has federal investigators examining the possibility that revolutionary activity is being supported by foreign subversion networks:

Hasan Piker Says Quiet Part Out Loud, Maps Radical Left NGO Network To China-Based Marxist Financier Feds Subpoena Hasan Piker, CodePink Cofounder Over “Humanitarian” Trip To Communist Cuba Feds Nab Alleged Member Of “Sprawling” Cuban Communist Subversion Network Linked To Hasan Piker’s Havana Trip “Americans Deserve To Know”: State Dept. Report Details Cuban Espionage, Subversion, And Role In Rise Of Far Left Piker is becoming such a liability for America’s left that a potential inflection point may have been reached.

JNS reports that the University of Washington has decided to cancel a scheduled Piker event. This taxpayer-funded institution

offers extensive coursework shaped by Marxist, feminist, and other far-left frameworks while placing limited emphasis on capitalism. If even one of America’s most progressive universities now views Piker as a liability, it may signal the beginning of a broader retreat from America-hating communists who spread hateful and violent rhetoric among America’s youth.

“I’m happy that the University of Washington, for literally the first time ever, has made the correct decision to not have an America-hating communist spread his hatred and terrible ideology to young people at our taxpayer-funded universities,” Travis Couture, a Republican state representative, told JNS.

“Obviously universities are a place for First Amendment free speech, but someone who said that America deserves 9/11 and that capitalist blood should spill in the street should not be someone we are promoting with our tax dollars,” Couture said.

“Every elected official and taxpayer-funded organization should be asked to condemn socialism, communism and Democratic Socialists of America people like Hasan Piker,” Couture told JNS. “If they will not condemn those people, actions and extreme ideology, then they should be disqualified from serving the people of Washington state.”

The cancellation suggests that his political toxicity may now outweigh his usefulness in mobilizing socialist and Marxist candidates who campaign on positions that denounce America and capitalism and are deeply unpopular with mainstream voters.

NeedtoKnow News

The American workforce is shrinking, and the decline is becoming difficult to dismiss as just another monthly fluctuation in the jobs data.

More than 1 million people have disappeared from the U.S. labor force over the past year, while the share of Americans working or actively looking for work has fallen to its lowest level since the aftermath of the pandemic.

The decline is being driven by several forces hitting at once: millions of baby boomers reaching retirement age, fewer younger workers coming behind them, tighter immigration, and a difficult hiring market that may be convincing some frustrated job seekers to simply stop looking.

For an economy that depends on a growing workforce to support everything from consumer spending to Social Security, the trend could have consequences well beyond the monthly jobs report.

America’s Workforce Has Shrunk by More Than 1 Million

The U.S. labor force stood at approximately 169.1 million people in July, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. A year earlier, it was roughly 170.4 million.

That represents a decline of about 1.3 million people in just 12 months, with much of the drop occurring recently.

At the same time, the labor-force participation rate fell to 61.4% in July, its lowest level since February 2021.

The participation rate measures the percentage of the population that is either employed or actively searching for work. It can therefore reveal something the headline unemployment rate does not: how many potential workers have stopped participating in the labor market altogether.

“Declines in the participation rate are becoming more concerning, as it’s currently near historic lows,” Dominic Pappalardo, chief multi-asset strategist at Morningstar Wealth, said in a note.

Excluding the extraordinary disruption caused by the pandemic, the participation rate has not been this low in decades.

Baby Boomers Are Leaving the Workforce

The most predictable force behind the decline is also one of the hardest to reverse.

America’s enormous baby boomer generation continues to age out of the workforce. Even the youngest boomers are now in their early 60s, meaning the country is moving deeper into a demographic transition that economists have been anticipating for years.

Cory Stahle, senior economist at the Indeed Hiring Lab, described boomer retirements as the most consistent force pushing participation lower.

Unlike a temporary economic slowdown, this part of the workforce decline is structural. Workers who retire at 65 or 70 generally aren’t waiting for a stronger jobs report before returning to work.

That matters because a smaller labor force can constrain the economy’s ability to grow. Businesses have fewer workers to hire, fewer people are earning wages, and the ratio between workers and retirees can continue to deteriorate.

There Aren’t Enough Young Workers to Replace Them

Retirements would be less problematic if a large new generation of workers were entering the labor market behind the boomers.

But America faces another demographic problem: birth rates have been declining for years.

Matthew Martin, senior U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, said the combination of an aging population, lower birth rates and tighter immigration policies is putting additional pressure on the workforce.

“As older workers continue their large-scale exit from the workforce, we don’t necessarily have other additional young workers to fill their spot,” Martin said.

Immigration has historically helped offset some of America’s demographic challenges by expanding the working-age population. Tighter immigration rules and increased enforcement under President Donald Trump’s second administration could reduce that source of labor-force growth as well.

The result is a simple demographic equation: more Americans are reaching retirement age while fewer new workers are available to replace them.

Some Americans May Simply Be Giving Up on Finding a Job

Demographics, however, don’t explain everything.

There is another possibility buried in the numbers: some Americans may be leaving the workforce because finding a job has become so difficult.

Under the government’s definition, unemployed Americans are generally counted as part of the labor force only if they have actively looked for work during the previous four weeks.

That distinction becomes important when job searches stretch for months.

The July jobs report showed unemployed Americans were taking nearly 25 weeks on average to find their next job. Roughly one-quarter of unemployed job seekers had been searching for at least six months.

Someone who spends months submitting applications without getting hired may eventually stop searching temporarily. Once that person goes more than four weeks without actively looking, he or she can disappear from the official labor force even though the underlying desire for a job may not have changed.

There were approximately 503,000 “discouraged workers” in July, according to the BLS, up from roughly 460,000 a year earlier. These are people who aren’t currently searching for work, potentially because they believe no suitable jobs are available.

“The fear here is we move to a state where people say ‘I’m no longer looking,’” Stahle said. “I’m just kind of giving up on my job search right now.”

Why This Matters for the Economy

A shrinking workforce creates a problem that extends far beyond employment statistics.

Economic growth ultimately depends on two major ingredients: how many people are working and how productive those workers are. If the number of available workers declines, productivity must rise faster simply to maintain the same long-term growth trajectory.

Labor shortages can also put upward pressure on wages in industries struggling to find employees. Higher wages are good for workers, but if businesses cannot offset those costs through productivity improvements, they can contribute to higher prices or lower corporate profit margins.

There is also a potential feedback loop. A weak hiring environment can push discouraged workers out of the labor force, while a smaller labor pool can make it harder for businesses to expand when economic conditions improve.

That makes the participation rate an increasingly important number to watch alongside payroll growth and unemployment.

The Social Security Math Gets Harder

The demographic shift also has major implications for Social Security and Medicare.

These programs rely heavily on payroll taxes collected from today’s workers to finance benefits for today’s retirees. As baby boomers leave their jobs, many effectively move from one side of that equation to the other: they stop contributing payroll taxes through employment and begin collecting retirement benefits.

A declining ratio of workers to retirees places increasing pressure on the system.

That does not mean a one-year decline in the labor force suddenly creates a Social Security crisis. But if America’s working population stagnates or contracts for an extended period while its retired population continues growing, the financing challenge becomes more difficult.

Policies that increase labor-force participation, immigration, productivity or the number of working-age Americans could therefore become increasingly important as the population ages.

One Number Investors Should Keep Watching

Monthly employment reports can be volatile, and summer hiring patterns can make individual readings especially difficult to interpret. The recent decline could moderate or reverse as more data arrives.

But the longer-term demographic forces are much harder to ignore.

Millions of baby boomers will continue reaching retirement age. America’s birth rate cannot quickly produce millions of additional working-age adults. Immigration policy remains a major variable, and the current hiring slowdown could push additional discouraged workers toward the sidelines.

The key question now isn’t simply whether unemployment rises or falls.

It’s whether the United States can keep enough people participating in the workforce to support an aging population and maintain economic growth.

Global Markets News

A new poll puts the AfD on course for a historic victory in Saxony-Anhalt, while the CDU may need support from other parties to prevent an AfD government.

The right-wing Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has surged to a record 42% in a new poll in Saxony-Anhalt, putting the party 20 percentage points ahead of the governing centre-right CDU just four weeks before the state election.

The Insa survey, published on Monday, August 10th, puts the AfD up one percentage point from its previous result, while the CDU of Prime Minister Sven Schulze has fallen two points to 22%.

Insa chief Hermann Binkert said there is no chance the CDU will overtake the AfD by September 6.

The far-left Die Linke is currently on 13%, while the Social Democrats (SPD) have risen one point to 6%.

The left-wing nationalist Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) is also on the 5% threshold after gaining one point. The Greens and the liberal FDP are each polling at 4% and would currently fail to enter the state parliament.

The new poll once again confirms the declining popularity of the establishment parties, whom voters no longer trust to deal with the most pressing issues, such as the migration crisis, the loss of competitiveness, the declining economy, and high energy prices.

Saxony-Anhalt has been governed by the CDU-SPD-FDP trio for the past five years.

The result in September could have major implications for the formation of the next state government. If only one of the four parties currently hovering around the 5% threshold enters parliament, the AfD could potentially secure an outright majority of seats.

If the party does indeed reach 42% on election day, it would be the AfD’s strongest performance in any German state election.

Even without an absolute majority, the party could have a route to power. Under Saxony-Anhalt’s rules, an absolute majority is required in the first two rounds of the prime minister election, but a simple majority is sufficient in the third. An abstention by BSW lawmakers could therefore potentially allow AfD lead candidate Ulrich Siegmund to become Germany’s first AfD state leader.

BSW has explicitly made removing current Prime Minister Sven Schulze a central election objective. Party founder Sahra Wagenknecht has called for his replacement by a non-party-affiliated prime minister who would end the so-called Brandmauer, the mainstream parties’ refusal to cooperate with the AfD.

The CDU is facing pressure to seek support from Die Linke to prevent an AfD government. Die Linke co-leader Luigi Pantisano has said he would not rule out supporting Sven Schulze in a prime minister vote, arguing that his party had previously helped prevent the AfD from taking power in other eastern German states.

The AfD has already unveiled an ambitious 100-day programme for government, including tougher deportation policies, changes to welfare provision for asylum seekers, cuts to funding for NGOs and party foundations, and reforms to public broadcasting.

Zoltán Kottász, European Conservative

GOP suit adds to a handful of lawsuits during this Nebraska midterm cycle

By Juan Salinas II-Nebraska Examiner

LINCOLN — The Nebraska Republican Party is suing to keep the America First Party off the November ballot. 

The GOP lawsuit asks Lancaster District Court Judge Darla Ideus to overrule Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen’s decision not to intervene with the party’s creation, declare that the party’s language is meant to confuse voters and therefore breaks state law, and stop the party from being officially recognized. 

The lawsuit argues that Omaha Tribe Attorney General John Cartier, the sponsor for the America First Party, “dressed up” the party with “conservative talking points: cracking down on illegal immigration, defending the Second Amendment, opposing abortion.”

“However, the façade crumbles under the slightest scrutiny. Mr. Cartier is a well-known leftist political operative with deeply held leftist political beliefs. This is not the establishment of a legitimate political party. It is political sabotage — a calculated effort to maliciously confuse voters by hijacking a nationally recognized brand inextricably linked to President Donald J. Trump and the conservative movement he leads,” the lawsuit reads. 

Both Republicans and Democrats have objections to the creation of two new parties in the state. 

State Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb accused U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts of being behind the effort to establish the Nebraska Working People Party. She said, “There’s only one reason to launch a new party this late: divide the vote and create chaos. Voters see through spoiler games funded by special interests.”

Republicans objected to efforts to establish the America First Party, pointing to Cartier’s connection to Legal Marijuana Now Senate candidate Mike Marvin. Republicans have accused Marvin of helping nonpartisan candidate Dan Osborn, contending that Marvin would drop out of the race. Marvin says he is staying in the race. The lawsuit also points to Cartier’s receiving $500 from Osborn’s campaign for legal fees in November 2024, according to the Federal Election Commission. 

The Nebraska Secretary of State’s Office announced Friday that the two proposed parties have met the petition signature threshold. If the parties meet the Aug. 27 deadline to submit organization documents, they must name candidates for the Nov. 3 general election by Sept. 1.

The GOP suit adds to a handful of lawsuits during this Nebraska midterm cycle. Another lawsuit seeks to force Nebraska Democrats to find a replacement for their Senate nominee, Cindy Burbank, who dropped out. Burbank had sued to get back on the primary ballot after Evnen removed her for not being a “good faith” candidate.

It’s unclear which races will see candidates from these two new parties, but most of the political drama has centered on the Senate race between Osborn and incumbent Republican Ricketts. 

The Nebraska GOP, through an attorney letter, late last month asked Evnen to object to the creation of the America First Party, contending that it would confuse voters because the name is “a designation widely and nationally understood to represent President Trump’s political movement and conservative policy priorities.” The party cited state law that says the secretary of state can reject a candidate’s filing if the state’s top election official determines that someone is not a “good-faith candidate” or is trying to cause confusion for voters. The law also says objections to party names can be considered. 

Evnen responded to the NEGOP request, writing that he agreed that the party was likely created to cause confusion, but said there is no other Nebraska party that uses the words “America” and “first” in its name.

“In the event that Nebraska courts hold that I have broader authority than I have indicated here … or otherwise, I would disqualify the name ‘America First Party,’” Evnen wrote. “Unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction timely holds otherwise, however, I will not disqualify the use of the name ‘America First Party.’” 

Lancaster County District Judge Matthew Mellor granted an emergency injunction preventing certification of the America First Party until Monday afternoon. A hearing in the case is scheduled for 2 p.m. that day.

That’s why if Hong becomes her party’s nominee, it will be interesting to hear her describe her contempt for the Thanksgiving holiday and why she thinks it should be canceled.

Hong also can explain why, as she has revealed, she’s feels uncomfortable among Whites, the same people whose votes she is seeking.

Will these two candidates be long shots in a general election? One would think so.

But Republicans had best not count their chickens before they’re hatched.

The Democratic socialist promises of

everything for everyone at someone else’s expense appear to be increasingly popular rhetoric among a growing segment of the population. It’s easy to see why, but the world doesn’t work that way.

In other primary election contests in U.S. House districts across the country, Democratic socialists have been knocking off liberal Democratic incumbents. These are solid Democratic districts, so they — think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — will be going to Washington, D.C.

This party’s unsettling transition is setting the stage for big changes in the Democratic Party and, potentially, for the nation, none of them good for either entity.

At the beginning of the year — with President Donald Trump’s approval ratings in steady decline — it was conventional wisdom that Democrats would take control of Congress in November and spend the next two years pursuing, among other things, the president’s impeachment.

Then, with the war in Iran further testing Trump’s support, a Democratic win in November became even more certain.

But dramatic events can change things, and the growing dominance of the Democratic Party by Democratic socialist candidates is a phenomenon that could be a game-changer.

Stated simply, traditional Democrats are having an terrible time maintaining control in the face of an increasingly successful Democratic socialist movement.

The radicalism of which the socialists brag undermines the party’s potential short-term success vis a vis November and poses a long-term threat to party viability.

These are candidates who have said they want to reorganize the three branches of the federal government — legislative, executive and judicial — eliminate borders, close prisons and eviscerate defense spending. And that’s just the beginning of their curious recipe for utopia. Although ridiculous, it is no joke.

On Tuesday, a hardcore leftist Democrat won the party’s nomination for the U.S. Senate in Michigan. The move was a shock to party establishmentarians that further entrenches the socialists into the national Democratic organization.

Abdul El-Sayed may have just barely eked out his victory, but a win is a win is a win.

He’s the Democrats’ candidate in November. Running as an outlier in a traditional Midwestern state won’t be easy, especially given his impressive GOP opponent, Mike Rogers.

While El-Sayed was having his way in Michigan, another Democratic socialist, Francesca Hong, is the leading Democratic candidate for the gubernatorial nomination in Wisconsin’s primary.

One thing the Democratic socialists deserve credit for is their candor. They’re not pretending to be anything other than what they are.

That’s why if Hong becomes her party’s nominee, it will be interesting to hear her describe her contempt for the Thanksgiving holiday and why she thinks it should be canceled.

Hong also can explain why, as she has revealed, she’s feels uncomfortable among Whites, the same people whose votes she is seeking.

Will these two candidates be long shots in a general election? One would think so.

But Republicans had best not count their chickens before they’re hatched.

The Democratic socialist promises of everything for everyone at someone else’s expense appear to be increasingly popular rhetoric among a growing segment of the population. It’s easy to see why, but the world doesn’t work that way.

In other primary election contests in U.S. House districts across the country, Democratic socialists have been knocking off liberal Democratic incumbents. These are solid Democratic districts, so they — think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — will be going to Washington, D.C.

This party’s unsettling transition is setting the stage for big changes in the Democratic Party and, potentially, for the nation, none of them good for either entity.

The News-Gazette Editorial Board

Argentina’s President Javier Milei continues to govern in ways that conservatives in America can only dream of. Now he’s come up with a new proposal that the U.S. would do well to copy.

When Milei came into office, he promised to slash government spending, balance the budget, embrace free trade, deregulate the economy, and get hyperinflation under control. (“Experts” such as Paul Krugman said it would end in disaster.)

Milei’s lived up to his promises. Month-over-month inflation was running at 25% when he took office; it’s below 2% now. Argentina ran a budget surplus in 2024, the first time since 2008. The poverty rate has plunged, and in July, the country got its third credit upgrade in three months.

Even the Washington Post marveled that “The message from the ratings agencies is that President Javier Milei’s market-oriented reforms are working.”

Now he’s put forth a plan designed to keep Argentina’s government in check for the long term.

“He’s calling it the grillete fiscal or the ‘fiscal shackle,’ and it’s part of a larger reform of the Central Bank’s charter that he’s sending to the country’s Congress, possibly for a mid-to-late-August vote,” writes Sarah Anderson at PJ Media, which is where we first learned of this proposal.

Under this plan, if the government runs a deficit for several months in a row, the Congress gets a warning, then the “shackle” kicks in, suspending non-essential government functions and basically freezing everything else in place. No new spending, no new contracts, no new hires, until lawmakers get the budget back in balance.

But the kicker is that, while the government is shackled, top politicians — ministers, undersecretaries, senators, etc., even the president — won’t get paid.

“For the first time in our history, if politics doesn’t do its homework, politics will pay the cost — not the people,” Milei said when he introduced the proposal.

Milei isn’t the first person to think up an idea like this. Since 2013, Montana Sen. Steve Daines has been introducing a bill that “withholds members of Congress’s salaries in each chamber if the Office of Management and Budget does not certify that the chamber has adopted a balanced budget. The bill also requires that revenue increases be agreed upon by an affirmative three-fifths vote in each chamber.”

But his bill would require Congress only to pass a budget that would balance 10 years down the road.

In May, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution that would withhold members’ pay during a government shutdown. But that applies only to senators, and the senators can easily pass another resolution suspending it when the time comes.

Of course, there’s no guarantee that Argentinian legislators will vote for a plan that puts their livelihoods on the line, but given Milei’s success in delivering for this country, they’d be crazy not to.

If they do, President Donald Trump and U.S. lawmakers should take note.

Issues & Insights Editorial Board

I hate how American politics feels like every election is an existential threat to the nation you, personally, want to see. I don’t trust Democrats to lead us well, and they don’t trust people like me and those I’d support to lead us well, either.

That’s fine, but the idea that every election matters to such a degree is troubling. The left, though, has long made it a spectator sport. After all, Trump is an existential threat to democracy. He’ll completely remake America into a fascist state.

Meanwhile, Democratic Socialists—people who are getting support from the Democratic Party when they win primaries—literally want to dismantle the United States.

Part of the DSA platform calls for abolishing the Senate and creating an executive and judiciary branch that answer to Congress, not that are independent in the least.

And, it’s a requirement for DSA-endorsed candidates to support that dismantling.

Listen to them. They don’t even realize how radical they sound. To them, this is just the most common sense thing imaginable, and so it’s not radical in the least. It’s just what “needs to happen” for some unfathomable reason.

But what we all need to comprehend is that what they’re talking about isn’t the United States of America. They’re not about improving our country. They’re talking about dismantling the entire system that makes this country what it is, then rebuilding a new system that would remove every guardrail against mob rule the Founding Fathers believed in.

Those guardrails are there for a reason, and it’s to stop people like your average DSA dirtweasel from campaigning on a “free ice cream for everyone” platform and actually implementing it.

What we have is bad enough, but there are still safeguards in place that keep it from getting too much worse. The president can veto things, and the judiciary can rule them unconstitutional.

And that is why the socialists think they need to go, why that’s what needs to happen. It’s because they can’t get their way, and they know it, so they want to destroy the entire Constitution.

Even if they claim they’ll just amend it, it doesn’t matter, because it won’t be even close to the same system. They’re hoping people will forget what they were taught in school about why we have two chambers of Congress, and how smaller states needed a way to make sure they weren’t bull-rushed by larger states and ignored by the federal authorities.

Even though senators are no longer chosen by state legislatures, they can still support that function.

It’s not supposed to be easy to create laws, but that’s what the DSA is really pissed about. There are systems in place to prevent their agenda from coming to fruition, and they know they’re unconstitutional, so they have to remake everything.

The threat from the avowed socialists isn’t hypothetical, either. They’re boasting more members than any other socialist organization in American history. They’ve got candidates winning important races, including becoming mayor of America’s largest city.

They’re an actual threat to the country. Now, these races really are an existential threat to America, and the Democrats are so enamored with the idea of taking back the House that they’re willing to sleep with the devil to make it happen. They’re willing to sell their own party down the river, allow it to be subjugated by actual socialists—not just the “we want a nice social safety net” folks, but people who actually think the state should control the means of production—all because they’re so blinded by Trump hatred that they can’t see the real threat standing beside them.

America is on the brink of having to make a choice. If DSA candidates are permitted to continue winning within the Democratic ranks, it’s only a matter of time before there’s no Democratic Party anymore. It’ll be the GOP and the DSA, and the existential threats will no longer be hyperbolic.

They’ll be literal.

Some will say we’re already too far gone at this point to stop the shooting from happening. That may be, and I tend to think we are, too, but I want to be wrong. I’m going to do everything I can to move us from that particular brink, but I can’t do it alone.

Democrats have got to recognize the demon they’re allowing into their big tent. They have to wake up to the fact that the people they’re rushing to support literally want to line them against the wall should the socialist revolution take over. At least I know I’ll get a bullet to the back of the head unless I fight—which I will do—but the leftists who aren’t quite that insane don’t seem to realize that they won’t be spared. Their insufficient revolutionary fervor will be all the evidence needed; then they’ll take their place under the guillotine’s blade.

If they recognize it and start pushing back, then we might have a chance. It’ll at least be a sign that America matters to both parties, even if we disagree on a lot of individual points. It’ll tell us that maybe, just maybe, we can start looking for common ground and pull back from the brink a bit.

It might not stop the next civil war from happening, but if we can kick it a century or so down the road, so much the better, in my mind.

But I promise you, if the DSA does what it expressly says it wants to do, that day will come a hell of a lot faster, and then all hell will break loose, and no one should want what comes afterward.

Tom Knighton, Tilting at Windmills

Reading FR then flicking to Twitter/X is sometimes like night and day. There’s a lot of dissent there among those I happen to follow (NOT Lefitsts or anything like that) regarding: Israel, Iran War, foreign policy and the Administration generally.

A lot of hot topics that get discussed here all the time and former Representatives or officials are leading the charge: MTG, Kent, Tucker Carlson and Massie the most prominent with many large accounts echoing them.

It’s clear to me this is more than just a few rebels who have no influence or standing in fact MTG says in one of her latest posts: “The Movement has begun”.

She is referring to ‘MAGA 2.0’ and a split from the Trump admin who they accuse of breaking promises of no more foreign wars and for their handling of the Epstein saga.

This has implications I think for Vance or anyone else in the administration who might want to run for president in future.

This is just an observation. I’m no troll but feel hesitant to post (or re-post) some of their stuff because it might attract complaints.

Sometimes I feel like walking on egg shells especially with foreign policy posts which I think is the main fissure in play and where some of us naturally agree with them on.

Are Twitter/X ahead of the curve or out of order?

Free Republic