Tag: democrats

Despite New Gun Controls, Homicides Are Spiking in Colorado’s Democratic Stronghold

When the FBI’s official crime stats come out later this year, we’re likely to learn that 2025 saw a record-setting decline in homicides nationwide, and that the overall homicide rate is the lowest it’s been since the FBI started keeping track in 1960. 

That welcome trend seems to be continuing in 2026, with criminologist Jeff Asher’s Real Time Crime Index showing another 22% decline in homicides through the first two months of the year. 

Still, there are some outliers, and one of them is Denver, Colorado. Last year Denver saw a 48% decrease in homicides, with Denver Police Chief Ron Thomas pointing to “a mix of faster police response, medical intervention, and long-term prevention strategies.” This year, though, homicides are trending in the wrong direction.

Data provided by police show that total crime, violent crime and reported gun-related offenses are down compared with both last year and recent averages. At the same time, homicides have risen compared with this point last year, with 17 reported so far in 2026, up from 10 during the same period in 2025.

Last year, Democrats in the Colorado legislature added several new restrictions to the spate of gun control laws that have been put in place since 2011, but they don’t appear to be having any kind of impact on homicides in the state’s biggest city. That’s hardly a surprise, though, given that violent crime overall climbed steadily over most of the past 15 years. 

In May, 2024 the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice released its report documenting crime rates between 2013 and 2022. Over that ten year period, violent crime rose by 61%, homicides increased by 94%, and aggravated assaults grew 88%. 

During that same ten-year period, Colorado instituted a number of gun control laws, starting with “universal” background checks and a ban on “large capacity” magazines in 2013. That was followed by a “red flag” law in 2019, and in 2021, new storage mandates for gun owners, a “lost or stolen” reporting requirement, and an end to the state’s firearm preemption law. 

Despite having almost a dozen anti-2A measures implemented over that time period, the homicide rate nearly doubled, and violent crime rates soared ever upward. 

Supposedly, overall violent crimes are down in Denver this year, even though homicides have increased by 70%, according to the CBS affiliate. Oddly, the Denver PD’s homicide dashboard reports 16, not 17 homicides, but even that is a 60% increase in murders. Non-fatal shootings have declined by 12% this  year, according to police, though in raw numbers we’re talking about five fewer incidents over the first 3 1/2 months of the year, which is hardly anything to write home about. 

The number of gun-involved homicides is also higher this year than at the same point in 2025, which is yet another sign that Colorado’s restrictive gun laws aren’t preventing violent offenders from getting their hands on a firearm. In the first four months of 2025 there were 10 homicides involving a firearm. We still have almost two weeks left in April, but Denver has already seen 12 homicides where a gun was involved. 

Of course, none of these statistics will matter to the anti-gun Democrats who keep ramming gun control laws through the legislature. They may use crime and public safety as a rationale for these laws, but the real goal is to prevent and prohibit lawful gun ownership. If violent crime falls at the same time, all the better, but that’s clearly not necessary for them to continue their crackdown on the exercise of our Second Amendment rights. 

Keep reading

Trouble in Virginia: Leftists Pay Canvassers To Gain college student support for Democrat Gerrymandering

According to a recent report at Campus Reform, “Left-wing activists are paying canvassers to promote a Democrat-led redistricting effort on Virginia college students, according to a recent job posting.”

This listing, posted on Indeed, sought applicants for a “Community Canvasser – Vote YES on Redistricting” position.

The goal would be to support a Democrat plot to “support a gerrymandering referendum in the upcoming election.”

The listing read like a typical far-left campaign pitch, saying “With Trump and MAGA-controlled legislatures in other states working to rig congressional maps, Virginians are at risk of having their voices diminished in Washington,” the post claims. “Virginians vote April 21st on a constitutional amendment that gives voters, not politicians, the power to protect fair representation for Virginia.”

As has been reported extensively, this gerrymandering proposal in VA would redraw congressional districts to favor the Dems.

This job mentioned is being pitched by a group known as “The Outreach Team, which advertises itself as “the national engine of campaigners and organizers powering the progressive movement” on its web page. It boasts of its partnerships with a number of prominent left-wing organizations, including Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, and the Biden-Harris campaign.”

In other words, this is a grassroots leftist effort to skew the elections towards the Democrats and put them at an advantage over Republicans.

Keep reading

Obama Films Desperate Video Pleading with Virginians to Approve Redistricting Referendum That Could Flip Up to Four House Seats to Democrats

Barack Obama released a video on Thursday calling for Virginia voters to approve a constitutional amendment on the April 21 special election ballot that would temporarily suspend the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission and let the Democrat-controlled General Assembly redraw congressional district maps.

The measure, framed by supporters as a response to Republican-led mid-decade redistricting in other states, would allow lawmakers to adopt new congressional maps for the 2026 midterms and beyond, continuing through the 2030 census.

Democrats say the proposed maps could shift Virginia’s current 6-5 Democratic advantage in the U.S. House delegation to as many as 10-1.

In the video, Obama stated:

“By voting yes, you can push back against the Republicans trying to give themselves an unfair advantage in the midterms.”

The former president continued, “By voting yes, you can take a temporary step to level the playing field. And we’re counting on you.”

Keep reading

Spanberger Rips Up Confederate Heritage To Separate Virginians From Their History

Seemingly not content to just destroy her state’s rule of law and election system, Democrat Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger has declared war on Virginia’s heritage and, more specifically, those who dedicate themselves to preserving it.

The newly minted governor signed a bill on Monday that revoked tax exemptions from several Confederate heritage organizations, including the state’s divisions of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). Spanberger also recently signed a bill that ceases the production of specialty license plates bearing the likeness of Robert E. Lee.

“Governor Spanberger’s signing of this bill is a proud moment and an important step forward for Virginia,” state Delegate Alex Askew, who sponsored the bill and has campaigned for it for several years, stated. But the question is: A step forward toward what? A Virginia that hates its own history, that curses those men of the past who built the state and made it what it is today?

Spanberger’s signature represents, as The New York Times put it, part of “a yearslong Democrat-led push to shake off the state’s legacy as the capital of the 11 Southern, slaveholding states that seceded from the country in the 1860s.”

And indeed it has been a years-long campaign by the left to erase Virginia’s, and America’s, history. The era that began with the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009 and reached its fever pitch during the fiery George Floyd riots of summer 2020 saw the slow but sure disappearance of Confederate history from the public sphere. Even some Republican politicians found a convenient scapegoat in long-revered Southern symbols.

During a BLM riot in Richmond, Virginia, in May 2020, extremist agitators attacked the headquarters of the United Daughters of the Confederacy with “incendiary devices.” The building, deeded to the organization by the state in 1950, was filled with countless Civil War-era documents and artifacts. The resulting fire and destruction caused $4.1 million in damage to the building and its contents, according to a lawsuit filed by the UDC. The wanton vandalism that night also extended to the multiple Confederate monuments on Monument Avenue, including the famous equestrian statue of Robert E. Lee that was removed in 2021.

The UDC was founded by Southern women in 1894 to “honor their family members and ancestors who served in the Confederate military or contributed to the Southern war effort.” And because of this, Virginia’s Democrats seek to strike back for the sin of honoring their ancestors through charitable work. The new law is intended to cripple an organization that mostly dedicates itself these days to civic engagement of a decidedly nonpolitical sort — helping homeless shelters and food banks.

And, of course, the radical leftists didn’t stop at Confederate monuments. Statues and memorials to the Founding Fathers, Christopher Columbus, and Teddy Roosevelt all came under attack during the heyday of race wokeness. Many of the memorials and museums that escaped physical attack were otherwise “contextualized” into oblivion with asides and nitpicks that drilled into patrons’ heads that America’s ancestors were very bad people.

Keep reading

Philly mayor yells at public, asks ‘how dare’ they question how much she wants to tax

n one of the most out-of-touch examples I’ve seen of Democrats in recent weeks, we’ve now got Philadelphia mayor Cherelle Parker yelling at her constituents over a new tax she wants on each and every ride-sharing journey: if enacted, all Uber and Lyft rides would have an additional dollar tacked on (to support the dying city education system), which in a substantial number of instances, wouldn’t be a miniscule tax. (The average cost of a rideshare in Philadelphia is somewhere between $16 and $24, or 6.25% and 4%, respectively.)

Parker wonders “how dare” the citizens and voters question how much she wants to take out of their pockets for others’ expenses.

Just so we’re all clear, this same woman just marched against “kings” a few weeks back, and even showed up as a featured speaker (via video) for her city’s protest…now imposing unpopular taxes by royal decree.

For context, under Cherelle Parker’s “leadership,” the public school system is facing a $300-million deficit, which according to the superintendent, “is driven by salary increases… rising charter school payments, and higher healthcare costs.” Entry-level teaching positions start around $54,000—in a school district where a whopping 85% of kids don’t test at or above a “proficient” level in their studies, according to the “Nation’s Report Card” data. Ironically, you may remember that Parker is the same woman who in 2025, made headlines when she couldn’t even spell “Eagles,” as in the Philadelphia Eagles. Her city’s own NFL team. A five-letter word. “E-L-G-S-E-S!”

Keep reading

How Liberalism Inevitably Turns to Managerialism

mong the more curious developments in modern liberal orthodoxy is its increasingly schizophrenic disposition towards political authority. Liberals are infinitely permissive with what they deem to be matters of personal expression, such as drug use, abortion, and various sexual contrivances. Yet, at the same time, on other sets of issues, liberals have adopted stringently authoritarian attitudes, supporting without compunction such draconian measures as censorship bureaus, speech codes, election nullification, and invasive medical overreach.

What is interesting about both these developments is how liberals will justify both moral laxity and political repression by invoking expert authority. The Left largely grounded its support for medicalized gender-affirmation on the judgment of purported expert institutions like WPATH; they justified permissive “harm reduction” approaches to managing homelessness by citing organizations like Harm Reduction International. Meanwhile, on the authoritarian end of the ledger, the Left invoked authorities like the Disinformation Governance Board (run out of DHS) and the Stanford Internet Observatory to argue for flagrant state censorship. Whether the cause of the hour is of the libertine or authoritarian variety, the Left invariably justifies it by appeal to scientific or technical expertise.

These developments in liberal politics — the schizophrenic lurching between permissiveness and authoritarianism, the endless exaltation of experts — are rooted in a vulnerability inherent in liberalism itself, namely that liberalism is inherently deconstructive. It is a political formula for dismantling social customs and hierarchies in pursuit of ever greater individual autonomy and equality — that is, in theory.

The problem for liberals is that this process only goes one way. Once Liberalism becomes the dominant social ethos, it discovers that it lacks the internal resources to construct and legitimate any social hierarchy. This creates problems for the exercise of governance, which is inherently hierarchical and authoritarian. (For evidence of this, the next time one is pulled over, one should deny the authority of the officer on the scene on the grounds of the inherent equality of all human beings; see what happens.)

In light of this, liberals have striven, over centuries, to devise some system that can justify hierarchical governance structures within their egalitarian ethos, postulating such schemes as Social Contract theory, Proprietorial Libertarianism, the Veil of Ignorance, Popular Sovereignty, and countless others. Historically, the only such systems that have proven politically viable are those ostensibly grounded in ‘technical expertise,’ that is to say, managerial liberalism.

The political viability of managerial liberalism has nothing to do with the inherent justness or validity of this solution. On the contrary, institutions of technical or professional authority, once leveraged for political authority, immediately become compromised. Their ‘expert opinions’ quickly degenerate into flagrantly pretextual covers for purely political machinations. Note that the various institutions cited at the outset, WPATH, the Disinformation Governance Board, and so forth, have since collapsed in a heap from their own corruption.

Keep reading

RFK Jr. Had No Idea What This Dem Rep Was Saying…and He’s Not Alone

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is facing a tough challenge on Capitol Hill. He hasn’t testified before Congress in months, so defending his positions, the MAHA agenda, and some of the HHS cuts turned into a fierce confrontation. While the media and Democrats hoped he would stray from his message, they even admitted he’s remained consistent (via WaPo):

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defended his controversial record leading the nation’s health department, as Democrats argued his changes on vaccines threatened public health in America and pushed back against his proposed budget cuts.

On Thursday, Kennedy kicked off a marathon of seven congressional hearings where lawmakers grilled him for the first time in more than seven months. The hearings will continue through next week.

Kennedy’s health department has recently undergone a major leadership shake-up, and he’s leaned into his messaging around food and nutrition as GOP pollsters warn of the political risks of vaccine skepticism ahead of the midterms. But for hours on Thursday, lawmakers quizzed him on vaccines, fraud in federal government programs and the budget request for his department.

That doesn’t mean some fireworks went off, like when Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL) asked this question, which left the HHS secretary aghast—he didn’t know what she was talking about:

REP. SEWELL: You’re NOT a doctor, you have no medical degree!

RFK: 24 of the 26 HHS Secretaries have not had medical degrees.

SEWELL: Have you ever re-parented a black child?

RFK: I don’t even know what that phrase MEANS. I’m not gonna answer something I didn’t say.

SEWELL: You said it.

RFK: I’d like to hear the recording! I don’t even know what it means!

The man is calm and collected; most Trump officials know how to play this game, even the ones who have been fired for other things. 

Keep reading

UNHINGED: Purple-Haired Radical Rosa DeLauro Has Total MELTDOWN Over Raw Milk

Far-left Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the same purple-haired radical we’ve repeatedly exposed for her unhinged public meltdowns, completely lost it Thursday during a House hearing while grilling HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over Americans’ right to drink raw milk.

DeLauro demanded that RFK Jr. publicly condemn raw milk as “dangerous” and essentially toe the corporate line pushed by Big Pharma and pasteurized milk lobbyists. When Kennedy refused to play along with the fearmongering, the 83-year-old Connecticut congresswoman went full meltdown mode.

“You are the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Is there not some moral responsibility or compunction to say, ‘Don’t drink raw milk, don’t do that, because it’s unpasteurized and can cause serious harm to your health?’ Is that not something you view as your responsibility?

“If I were the head of HHS, I would by God say don’t take raw milk! It is dangerous to your health and if you can’t say that well maybe there are some other conclusions that can be drawn!” DeLauro said.

Kennedy told lawmakers that agencies should “inform the public” and “let people make a choice,” rather than dictate behavior outright.

This is the same Rosa DeLauro whom The Gateway Pundit previously reported on when RFK Jr. absolutely buried the purple-haired Democrat back in May 2025 during his first major HHS hearing. She tried to lecture him then too, and got completely owned.

The radical left, Big Pharma, and the corporate food cartel hate raw milk because it represents everything they despise: freedom, tradition, local farms, and real nutrition that doesn’t come in a plastic-wrapped, government-approved package.

Keep reading

This Isn’t Just Trump’s War on Iran. Both Parties Paved the Way for Disaster.

nlike the invasion of Iraq, which received the support of a sizable minority of congressional Democrats, Donald Trump’s war on Iran has received near-universal criticism. Still, the party has focused primarily on process-style critiques — such as the legality of declaring the war under the Constitution and the war’s economic impact — rather than the humanitarian consequences and flagrant violations of international law.

That should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the U.S. bipartisan consensus on Iran: For over 20 years, a number of prominent Democratic leaders — and in some cases, large majorities of congressional Democrats overall — have helped paved the groundwork for Trump’s war by issuing exaggerated and alarmist statements about Iran’s supposed danger to the region, threatening the use of military force, and undermining diplomatic initiatives, sometimes even criticizing Republicans from the right.

In 2024, the Democratic Party platform criticized “Trump’s fecklessness and weakness in the face of Iranian aggression during his presidency” by not responding militarily to attacks by Iran and groups in Iraq and elsewhere that share Iran’s strategic objectives. The platform cited four separate incidents that took place under his first administration, failing to acknowledge that each was a direct result of Trump’s aggressive policies against Iran, including the assassination of Qassim Suleimani, a top Iranian general.

By contrast, the party’s platform praised President Joe Biden for having “authorized precision airstrikes on key Iranian-linked targets,” which it claimed would “deter further aggression by Iran.” It praised “America’s ironclad commitment to the security of Israel and our unrivaled ability to leverage growing regional integration among U.S. partners to counter Iranian aggression.” Though eager to stress military means to counter Iran, the platform failed to directly call for a return to the Iran nuclear deal under the Obama administration, which considerably reduced regional tensions — a deal that Biden campaigned on reinstating but failed to do.

The month after the release of the party platform, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris attacked Trump in a presidential debate, declaring that her administration “will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel.”

Keep reading

The Winner at the DNC’s Latest Meeting? Israel, Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide

In the aftermath of last week’s big meeting of the Democratic National Committee in New Orleans, supporters of the U.S.-Israel alliance have been quite content. “We’re pleased that the DNC Resolutions Committee rejected a set of divisive, anti-Israel resolutions,” the president of Democratic Majority for Israel said. The CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, a former national security advisor to Kamala Harris, expressed gratitude to the DNC’s leadership.

Why did pro-Israel groups voice so much pleasure and praise – not only for the sidelining of pro-human-rights resolutions but also for the process that sidelined them? The answer has to do with the DNC’s mechanism that thwarted changes in positions on Israel. A panel named the Middle East Working Group gummed up all efforts to align the DNC with the views of most Democratic voters, even while supposedly hard at work.

Last Friday, the transparent thinness of the pretense caused Politico to headline an article this way: “Inside the DNC’s Middle East (Not) Working Group.” But the not-working group had been functioning quite well – as a charade for delay and obfuscation.

The day before the derisive headline appeared, the DNC Resolutions Committee dispensed with a resolution about events in Gaza and the West Bank. Its provisions included a declaration that the DNC “supports pausing or conditioning U.S. weapons transfers to any military units credibly implicated in violations of international humanitarian law or obstruction of humanitarian assistance.”

That resolution critical of Israel went nowhere, which is to say it went to the so-called working group, also known as a “task force.”

Assisting the diversion as chair of the Resolutions Committee was political strategist Ron Harris, described in his home state of Minnesota as a “longtime Democratic Party insider.” He made false claims during the meeting: “I know that the task force has met once a month since it was created…. I have the confidence that work is happening…. These are people working really really hard over a very thorny issue…. They are doing their work…. They’re hearing from experts and all sorts of things.”

The falsehood that the task force had met “once a month,” when actually it had scarcely met, was enough reason for me to contact Harris and ask where he’d gotten that (mis)information. He replied that it was “according to the DNC staffer coordinating the process.”

The basic problem with the working group is not only that it hasn’t done much of anything in the nearly eight months since DNC Chair Ken Martin announced it with great fanfare. The underlying hoax is that it was set up not to reflect the views of registered Democrats nationwide.

Polling is clear. Three-quarters of Democrats agree that “Israel is committing genocide,” and a large majority are more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israelis by a 4-to-1 margin. But only a minority of the Middle East Working Group’s eight members has a record of supporting Palestinian rights, while several are firm supporters of Israel. The oil-and-water mix seems destined for stalemate or mere platitudes. But stalemate and platitudes appear to be just fine from here to the horizon for DNC leadership.

Such stalling mechanisms and scant real representation are as old as the political hills. In this case, an unfortunate boost has come from James Zogby, who for decades bravely worked inside the Democratic Party and elsewhere to advocate for the human rights of Palestinians, in sharp contrast to U.S. foreign policy.

Keep reading