Establishment Democrats Make Last Stand Against Socialist Takeover with Bizarre Rep. Haley Stevens Debate

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) and former public health official Abdul El-Sayed presented Michigan Democrats with sharply different choices Monday during their final Senate debate before the August 4 primary, clashing over outside spending, corporate political contributions, Israel, immigration, health care, and which candidate was better positioned to defeat Republican Mike Rogers.

The Fox 2 Detroit debate highlighted the divide between Stevens, who is backed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) and Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), and El-Sayed, who has endorsements from Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and the United Auto Workers.

Outside spending and campaign finances dominated much of the debate. Stevens’ campaign and six super PACs backing her have spent more than $61 million on primary ads, according to AdImpact figures shared by CBS. El-Sayed’s campaign and outside groups supporting him have spent more than $15.3 million combined, according to FEC reports cited by CBS.

The New York Times reported that United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s main super PAC, had spent $30.6 million on advertising backing Stevens, while six other super PACs that had not disclosed their donors spent a combined $29.4 million on her behalf. 

El-Sayed repeatedly argued that groups spending tens of millions of dollars to support Stevens would expect something in return.

“Sixty million dollars from outside organizations in this race didn’t just go nowhere,” El-Sayed said. “It’s because those exact same organizations expect something on the other side.” He added that they “expect to own your next U.S. senator.”

He also questioned Stevens’ electability without that financial advantage.

“If you need a $60 million crutch, you probably can’t be elected on your own terms,” he said.

Stevens countered that El-Sayed also benefits from Fighting for Michigan PAC, which had spent about $2.4 million as of the debate. She said she did not believe there was “much difference” between super PACs supporting either candidate and pointed to her A grade from End Citizens United and endorsement from Defend the Vote.

The candidates also sparred over contributions connected to DTE Energy and Consumers Energy.

Moderator Roop Raj asked Stevens whether she was taking money from the two utilities for her Senate campaign. Stevens initially deflected, speaking about her transparency and criticism of her voice, before Raj pressed her for a direct answer. She then said no.

The Detroit News reported that Stevens’ House campaign received approximately $63,500 from the utilities’ main political action committees between 2019 and 2025. Her House committee later transferred two $2,500 contributions — one originating from DTE and one from Consumers Energy — to her Senate committee.

After the debate, Stevens said she answered no because Raj had asked specifically about the Senate race. El-Sayed called her response a “frank lie,” arguing that money transferred into her Senate committee had still entered the Senate campaign.

Israel and AIPAC also emerged as central points of disagreement. El-Sayed criticized Stevens for voting against cutting off U.S. aid to Israel and linked the vote to spending by United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s principal super PAC.

“That is the pro quo that comes with the quid of $30 million spent by AIPAC,” El-Sayed said.

Stevens responded by pointing to the super PAC supporting El-Sayed. “I don’t think there’s much difference between super PACs going in for Abdul or super PACs going in for me,” she said.

The candidates also disagreed over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Stevens pointed to her visit to an ICE detention facility and said the agency’s treatment of detainees had become unacceptable.

“I went up to an ICE detention facility to call out and see why people were losing their lives, why they were being held for long periods of time without due process,” Stevens said. “This has been an outrage.”

El-Sayed took a more sweeping position, calling for ICE to be abolished.

“The idea that somehow we can’t say ‘abolish ICE’ because we’re so afraid of what they’re going to say, when we’ve seen ICE terrorize people in our streets, to me, it is exactly the kind of cowardice that we don’t need from Democrats,” he said.

Asked about accusations that he is a socialist, El-Sayed rejected the label and argued that monopolies and oligopolies pose the greatest threat to capitalism.

“I’m not a socialist,” El-Sayed said. “I’m just a capitalist who understands how capitalism works. The biggest threat to capitalism was never the idea of government regulation. It was always monopoly.”

He continued: “I think government ought to be there to regulate on monopolies and oligopolies, so that everybody can actually participate in an economy without having to be forced to pay more or get paid less for the work that they do.”

Elsewhere in the debate, El-Sayed called for eliminating the Senate filibuster, passing the PRO Act, taxing billionaire wealth, strengthening antitrust enforcement, and establishing Medicare for All.

Stevens portrayed El-Sayed as a “celebrity candidate” who viewed the Senate as another step toward higher office, pointing to his podcasts, books, and what she said was a website for a presidential campaign.

Keep reading

One-Third of Democrats Identify as Democrat Socialists

Far-left CNN reports that “about a third of Democrats and Democratic-leaning adults identify as democratic socialists,” per the latest polling.

This is a big problem for an increasingly radicalized Democrat Party that continues to move further and further to the left and far out of mainstream thinking on issues like abolishing prisons, abolishing the U.S. Senate, sexualizing and queering little kids, defunding the police, open borders, socialized medicine, annihilating Israel, and outright property confiscation.

The polling shows that 59 percent of these socialists are under age 45 and — surprise, surprise — predominantly white (57 percent). They are also less likely to have a college degree or make over $100,000 per year.

What should truly trouble the Democrat Party is how motivated these loons are to vote — 66 percent are “extremely motivated to vote this year,” compared to just 57 percent of non-socialist Democrats.

When these extremists win primaries, especially in purple states, that gives Republicans a real chance to prevail. Socialist Abdul El-Sayed is less than a week away from winning the Democrat nomination for U.S. Senate. The problem for Democrats is that he is a total radical, but he’s a radical who is up over his closest primary opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, by double digits. However, polling also shows that he is losing to the Republican nominee, former Rep. Mike Rogers, by double digits, whereas Stevens is tied with Rogers.

In Wisconsin, another purple state, socialist Francesca Hong is running away with the race to choose the Democrat nominee for governor. Polls also show that Hong is behind the likely Republican nominee, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, whereas Hong’s closest primary opponent, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, is up by four points over Tiffany.

Between the war with Iran and the high gas prices, not to mention the usual-usual voter bias against any White House incumbent during off-year elections, Democrats should be romping all over the country. Instead, at least as of right now, Republicans look like they will hold on to control of the Senate and have a fighting chance to hold the House.

If forced to bet my life, I’d give the Senate to the GOP and the House to Democrats, but a normal Democrat Party would be coasting to victory in this political environment. Their problem, of course, is that they have a tiger by the tail with these radicals, a tiger they created over the last ten years, where they radicalized their base to oppose President Trump on absolutely everything, including commonsense policies like locking up criminals and deporting rapists.

Keep reading

Fla. AG says his office is opening an investigation into Fauci after Senate hearing

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has announced that his office is opening an investigation into Anthony Fauci, the former White House chief medical adviser, following a fiery Senate hearing.

Emphasizing Fauci’s unwillingness to answer lawmaker’ questions on Wednesday, Uthmeier revealed the move in a social media post.

“Fauci’s lack of candor to Congress is unbelievable,” Uthmeier said on Wednesday. “My office is launching an investigation into Dr. Fauci. It’s past time we get the truth of what happened during COVID.”

During the hearing, Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 111 times as Republican senators asked him questions related to the COVID-19 pandemic and its origins.

Fauci’s appearance before the committee came after Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who chairs the committee, released more than 1,000 pages of his private diary entries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pages appeared to reveal discrepancies between Fauci’s public statements regarding the virus and its impact and his private conversations and information.

In a statement to Fox News, Uthmeier elaborated on his office’s move to investigate Fauci.

“In light of recent reports exposed by Senator Rand Paul, we will investigate any and all potential violations of Florida law involving Anthony Fauci,” Uthmeier told Fox News.

“Our inquiry will focus on what Fauci knew, when he knew it, and how he misled the American people. We will examine the physical and monetary harms to Floridians that may have resulted from his deceptions and determine whether his conduct exposes him to liability under state law,” he continued.

In a 2020 diary entry, Fauci estimated a lower COVID-19 death rate than what he told Congress under oath a week later, as well as other seeming discrepancies. While some view the messaging as inconsistent, others attributed the differences to evolving data.

While speaking on The Benny Show on Thursday, Uthmeier said they would be sending “a plane up to D.C. and get any file they’re willing to share with us.”

“I look forward to working with Senator Rand Paul. I know he’s eager to find accountability,” he continued, adding that it would be likely they would issue subpoenas “as early as next week.”

Keep reading

Musk’s America PAC Reportedly Plans $120 Million Midterm Blitz, Setting Stage For Renewed Left-Wing War On Elon

The New York Times reports that Elon Musk’s America PAC plans to spend as much as $120 million to help Republicans in November’s midterm elections, signaling that the world’s richest man is preparing to reenter the political game with fewer than 100 days until voters head to the polls.

America PAC’s spending surge will likely spark a coordinated opposition campaign from Democratic groups and left-wing NGOs, ranging from protests and activist pressure to sustained negative press coverage of Musk, as well as attempts to damage his brands, including Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI.

The Democrats’ playbook could resemble their coordinated pressure campaign against Musk when he was involved with DOGE and the dismantling of most of USAID. This sparked street demonstrations by left-wing and far-left activist networks supported by left-wing NGOs, along with an aggressive left-leaning media campaign that sought to make him the public face of the administration’s agenda.

The NYT report is based on “two people briefed on the plans,” and like many stories run by left-leaning corporate media. Musk usually denies the reports on X, but if this report is correct, it says Musk authorized America PAC to build a field operation across at least eight states, targeting Senate races in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio, while considering contests in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas.

Keep reading

Biden’s Pardon Can’t Protect Fauci From Legal Consequences

Dr. Anthony Fauci may have believed his Fifth Amendment marathon at the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday would shield him from prosecution, but he miscalculated.

Before he refused to answer questions from the committee, Fauci did deliver an opening statement, during which he attacked Committee Chairman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and explained his decision not to answer any questions.

“Given Senator Paul’s obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution, his repeated slanderous comments about me, and, recently, his publicly releasing my unredacted personal diary aimed at embarrassing and intimidating me, the only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something – anything – that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, ‘behind bars,'” Fauci said. “Therefore, although it pains me to do so because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government and my decades-long record of cooperating with Congress, under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions.”

And so he did, an estimated 111 times, but it won’t protect him completely.

On Jan. 20, 2025, his last day in office, Biden granted Fauci a full and unconditional pardon covering any offenses he may have “committed or taken part in” tied to his government roles between Jan. 1, 2014, and Jan. 19, 2025. The broad preemptive pardon Joe Biden handed him on the way out the door covers federal charges alone, and it leaves him exposed to the state charges that may arrive sooner than his lawyers expected.

Florida wasted no time proving the point. State Attorney General James Uthmeier announced an investigation into the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) after Fauci declined to answer lawmakers’ questions on Wednesday.

Keep reading

See The Hilarious AI Ads That Furious California Democrats Want Banned

Two California Democrats are moving to outlaw AI-generated campaign ads at the federal level, just days after a Republican rival for the governor’s mansion used the technology to hammer their party.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) on Monday reintroduced the AI Ads Act, which would make it a federal violation to use artificial intelligence to impersonate candidates or committees in federal races.

The push comes on the heels of two AI-generated spots from GOP gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, who went after Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrat gubernatorial nominee Xavier Becerra.

Of course, Hilton isn’t the only one having fun with the technology. The campaign of Spencer Pratt, the reality television star turned Los Angeles mayoral candidate, made waves with his creative and side-splitting ads from Los Angeles-based director Charles Curran.

Unsurprisingly, Schiff claims his bill isn’t about politics, but about protecting against a so-called “serious threat to our democracy.”

“AI-generated fraudulent advertising which uses the likeness or voices of candidates to misrepresent their positions, campaigns, or causes, or otherwise misrepresents a candidate’s point of view is not only wrong – it poses a serious threat to our democracy that should concern all Americans regardless of their party,” said Schiff. “Fraudulent AI advertising has already proliferated in races across the country, and if Congress does not act, this runaway challenge will only get worse as AI becomes increasingly capable of blurring the lines between fact and fiction. With November elections around the corner, time is of the essence to reign in false political advertising.”

Groups that support the bill include Common Cause, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Campaign Legal Center, Protect Democracy and Public Citizen, according to the New York Post.

“AI will transform our lives and our society in many ways, but it can’t be used to mislead voters or undermine our democracy. I’m proud to lead the AI Ads Act with Senator Schiff to ban AI-generated content that deceives the public about candidates or elections,” Khanna said in a statement.

Keep reading

‘We Won Completely’: Weinstein Says COVID ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ Were Totally Vindicated

Not so long ago, everything below was a bannable offense – usually based on the vapid logic of some 24-year-old “trust & safety” associate. In a clip circulating Thursday, evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein takes stock of what the dissidents actually won for their trouble, Vigilant Fox reports.

WEINSTEIN: “We live in two worlds simultaneously at the moment. I remember conversations that I had with people I cared deeply about at the beginning of COVID right as the lab leak story was beginning to crack.”

“What I saw was, actually, I think we’re going to win the lab leak story. We’re not yet winning the vaccine story, and we’re way behind on the repurposed drug story.

“In 2026, here’s what we see. We actually won. Completely. All of these things are now visible to anybody who wishes to see them.

Yet, while hearts and minds were won and ‘conspiracy theorists’ vindicated, we have a limp dicked government that won’t hold anyone’s feet to the fire

“And we’ve lost completely. Our capacity to do anything about this is now on full display. We have none.”

“Your ability to simply get the story clear enough and enough evidence on the table does not have an impact on what happens next.

“We’re still apparently dispensing these frickin shots. How crazy is that? Right after all that we have unearthed, after all the people who lost their careers to unearth this stuff, they’re still dispensing the frickin shots.”

WEINSTEIN: “We need to figure out now how to talk to the people who actually have goodness in their hearts, but are still so desperately confused.

“You have to figure out how to approach them with enough generosity of spirit that you can get them over the line to just seeing. You can get them to take off the blindfold.”

Keep reading

Liberal Justice Ketanji Jackson Mocked For Discussing the Importance of Impartiality… While Appearing on Michelle Obama’s Podcast

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared on Michelle Obama’s “IMO” podcast this week in an episode titled, “Move Through the Hard Times with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.”

Ketanji Jackson discussed her life before serving on the Supreme Court, motherhood and other topics.

At one point, Ketanji Jackson stressed the importance of impartiality.

“There are lots of limits on what judges can do, and I try to be very, very mindful and scrupulous with respect to that because, as you say, our obligation is to be unbiased in our approach,” said Jackson.

“And, so, you have to then navigate all the sources that could make for an appearance of partiality, which you want to avoid,” Jackson added.

The irony.

Michelle Obama chimed in and agreed and asked Justice Jackson if she consumes the news.

“You also have to watch your exposure to things, so that there isn’t a bias,” said Obama. “What does that mean for you in terms of reading the paper and listening to the news? And how do get your information and what do you have to be careful about? And how are you dealing with the potential conflicts so that you do stay above board?”

Ketanji Jackson said her legal team screens invitations to make sure there are no ethical conflict.

“When I get invitations to do things, I always have them screened by the legal office, the public information office, just to make sure that there are no ethical conflicts, that this is not a fundraiser, you know,” Ketanji Jackson told Michelle Obama.

Keep reading

US Intel Chiefs Back Trump’s Claim China Interfered In American Elections

A fact sheet released July 30 by the White House Government Transparency Task Force says China and its proxies bought, stole, or hacked voter data belonging to as many as 220 million Americans, including some information that was not publicly available.

The fact sheet pairs that finding with the intelligence community’s official definition of election interference, which includes a foreign power’s targeting of voter data.

It notes that, for a foreign country’s actions to amount to “election interference,” they do not have to change the actual results.

“That definition includes a foreign power’s targeting of voter registration infrastructure or data,” the task force states, citing declassified documents produced by the U.S. intelligence community.

The fact sheet was approved by the heads of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Department of Homeland Security, according to the White House.

Representatives from those agencies—as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation—also coordinated with the White House before Trump’s July 16 address and “approved the factual statements” drawn from intelligence documents used in the speech, the task force states.

Election Interference Defined

In his speech, Trump said China has long been meddling in U.S. elections, including that it was “working to influence” the results of the 2020 presidential election, in which President Joe Biden was ultimately declared the winner.

Trump did not explicitly claim that China managed to change the 2020 result, and neither did the heads of U.S. intelligence agencies.

The spy chiefs did say in the fact sheet that voter-registration data is itself part of election infrastructure and could be manipulated in ways that affect election results, for instance by preventing groups of voters from casting their ballots.

“Adversaries could alter data to potentially prevent individual voters or groups of voters from voting, causing delays on election day or forcing voters to use provisional ballots,” the task force states, citing intelligence community documents.

Keep reading

OF COURSE! Katie Hobbs to Skip Arizona Gubernatorial Debate Against Trump-Endorsed Andy Biggs – Biggs Campaign Responds!

Arizona Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs said on Thursday that for a second consecutive election, she will not participate in a debate. 

Hobbs previously refused to participate in her primary and general election debates in 2022 before she stole the election from Trump-endorsed Kari Lake.

In a statement, Hobbs’ campaign manager Nicole DeMont told 12 News, “We respectfully decline debate invitations in this campaign because face-to-face engagement with Arizonans is more effective than a stage designed for short soundbites and political theater.”

DeMont went on to say that Hobbs has done “more than 100 open-press events”; therefore, she’s exempt from the tradition of defending her candidacy on the debate stage.

Hobbs’ team issued a similar statement amid the controversy during the last election cycle, blaming the circumstances surrounding the debate, when she refused to square off against Kari Lake.

“Debating a conspiracy theorist like Kari Lake – whose entire campaign platform is to cause enormous chaos and make Arizona the subject of national ridicule – would only lead to constant interruptions, pointless distractions, and childish name-calling,” the Hobbs campaign said last year.

Keep reading