Tag: politics

The DSA’s Agenda Could Cost More Than $200 Trillion—and You’ll Be Picking Up the Tab

“Imagine taking a day off from work in a future without capitalism,” reads the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) website. 

“You have no debt. You don’t need health insurance. You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right. Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren’t for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities,” it continues.

Sounds pretty good, right? Conveniently, the DSA fails to mention how much it would cost to create this socialist utopia. Unsurprisingly, it would be a lot of money.

This week, Adam Michel, director of Tax Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, added up nine of the largest proposals in the DSA platform. Based on his estimates, the proposals would require between $71 trillion and $212 trillion—which represents 18 percent and 53 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), respectively—in additional government spending.

In the U.S., government spending already makes up about 38 percent of GDP, which is relatively high by historical standards but low compared to the rest of the world. Under a high-end estimate of the DSA’s agenda, that 38 percent would rise to 92 percent of GDP, according to Michel. A lower-end estimate would raise spending to more than 57 percent of GDP, higher than most European countries.

No major advanced economy spends anything close to 92 percent of GDP. This level of expenditure would require the mass confiscation of private property, handing an unprecedented amount of power to politicians. These estimates are, as Michel tells Reason, “much closer to estimates of state control under Soviet-style communism than to today’s European welfare states.”

Keep reading

‘Antisemitic’ Fla. Congressional candidate Dan Bilzerian receives heavy backlash after posting highly offensive AI ad targeting Rep. Fine

Bipartisan leaders in Washington are uniting to condemn an increasingly bitter Republican primary in Florida’s 6th Congressional District.

The backlash follows social media personality Dan Bilzerian’s release of an AI-generated attack ad against incumbent U.S. Representative Randy Fine, one of just four Jewish Republicans currently serving in the House.

Bilzerian, who is running in the Republican primary in Florida’s 6th Congressional District, has previously expressed immense respect for the Muslim community, praised aspects of Islamic culture and stated that he began reading the Quran out of personal interest — during podcast appearances and interviews.

He has also been an outspoken critic of Israel and a vocal advocate for “Palestinian rights.”

You can watch Bilzerian’s AI-generated attack ad here.

In the most shocking attack ad, Representative Fine (R-Fla.) appears adorned with the Star of David alongside images of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, using artificial intelligence (AI) to sprout devilish horns from Fine’s head while referring to him as a “satanic whore.”

“It is unheard of to share an opponents television commercial. But I want you to watch it. Every second. Celebrating Hitler. Having horns grow out of the heads of Jews. Showing me violently assaulted. And if this appeals to you, I don’t want your vote. We have a choice on Tuesday, to embrace the kind of Nazism that led to the Holocaust or to repudiate this filth and reaffirm American values and character. Let’s send a resounding message on Tuesday,” Fine (R-Fla.) posted on X.

Keep reading

The DNC Just Made Abolishing ICE Official Party Policy

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has formally backed a resolution calling for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Newsweek reports that DNC members approved the measure Saturday during the party’s summer meeting in Austin, Texas, calling on congressional Democrats to pass legislation eliminating ICE and winding down the federal immigration detention system.

The resolution also calls for withholding Department of Homeland Security funding unless the administration ends a series of enforcement practices, including workplace raids, large-scale roundups and arrests at courthouses and ICE check-ins.

It additionally demands the closure of immigration detention facilities, the termination of private detention contracts and the release of most immigration detainees while their cases proceed.

The vote makes abolishing ICE a position formally endorsed by the DNC, although it does not amend the Democratic Party’s official national platform.

“Our official party positions are determined at the convention every four years in our platform,” said DNC Chairman Ken Martin.

“However, clearly, the one thing that unites Democrats, regardless of their position on reform versus abolish or whatever other ways to change what’s happening, is people believe that what ICE is doing right now and CBP and the federal government should stop.”

Keep reading

Rashida Tlaib Calls Michael Brown’s Death Murder. The Evidence Says Otherwise.

Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan marked the 12th anniversary of Michael Brown’s death by declaring that he “was murdered by a police officer in Ferguson.”

She didn’t call his death tragic or controversial, but she accused former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson of murder as if the case had never been investigated.

It was exhaustively investigated. The Obama Justice Department reviewed physical, ballistic, forensic, medical, and autopsy evidence. Investigators interviewed more than 100 purported eyewitnesses and canvassed more than 300 homes.

They concluded the evidence didn’t support federal civil rights charges against Wilson and didn’t establish that his use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable.

As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. 

Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. 

The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution. Cf. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution). 

Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown. 

VI. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.

The famous “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative fared even worse. Investigators found no credible witness who could establish that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was clearly surrendering.

Some witnesses recanted, while others contradicted themselves or the physical evidence. The investigation found no eyewitness who said Brown uttered the words “don’t shoot.”

Ferguson had real problems. A separate federal investigation found unconstitutional police practices and racial discrimination inside the department. Those findings were exposed by the greatest disinfectant: sunshine; they deserved exposure and reform. They didn’t transform unsupported claims about Wilson and Brown into facts.

“Hands up, don’t shoot” nevertheless became one of the great political falsehoods of our time. Once a narrative becomes emotionally useful to the loons on the left, correcting it becomes remarkably difficult.

We’ve observed that truth play out several times, infamously with President Donald Trump’s Charlottesville remarks. His “very fine people” comment is still routinely presented as praise for neo-Nazis and white nationalists.

Keep reading

Jeffries: Democratic Socialists of America Will Be Part of Our ‘Broad Caucus’

Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said if elected, some Democratic Socialists of America members will be part of the Democrats’ “broad caucus.”

Host Kristen Welker said, “Do Democratic Socialists belong in the Democratic Party?”

Jeffries said, “Well, what I can say is that I do not support defunding the police. I do not support open borders. I do not support abolishing the Senate. We’re focused on actually solving problems that hardworking American taxpayers want us to solve, which is to lower the high cost of living in a situation where life is far too expensive in this country. That’s the democratic agenda. That’s what House Democrats are fighting to achieve.”

Welker said, “Do you think, though, that there is room in the Democratic Party, under the tent of the Democratic Party, for Democratic Socialists, is it big enough?”

Jeffries said, “Well, listen, I don’t support the DSA agenda, as has been articulated, by the DSA itself. Now you’re going to have individual members, who have been elected in Democratic primaries and if they are elected in the general in November, will be part of the House Democratic caucus. It’s going to be a broad caucus.”

Keep reading

Rage Politics: Hakeem Jeffries Will Take A Baseball Bat To The Supreme Court

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has struggled to pander to the mob to secure power in the midterm elections, including brandishing a baseball bat on social media to show his radical bona fides.

With Democratic Socialists chanting “you’re next” when seeing Jeffries, he continues to struggle to stay in front of the mob.

This week, he doubled down on his pledge to throw the Supreme Court to the mob if they make him the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

After the recent gains by far-left candidates in states like Minnesota and the near victory of Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong in Wisconsin, Jeffries came out to reaffirm his intent to radically change the highest court. According to the Washington Times, Jeffries declared, “There’s a variety of different options that are on the table, and I think that we can’t foreclose any single one of them.” He added that the “conservative, right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has become basically a subsidiary of the MAGA Republican Party.”

He promised to make far-left Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) the driving force behind changing the Court, including possible 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices and expanding the Court to create an instant liberal majority.

Notably, none of these figures were claiming that the Court was fundamentally flawed until it ruled against them, particularly in cases that impacted their political power such as declaring racial gerrymandering to be unconstitutional.

What is interesting is that the liberal justices reject this narrative, reminding citizens that the Court has delivered major losses to the Trump Administration. Indeed, President Trump has routinely attacked conservative justices for ruling against him and his Administration.

In addition, polls show that the majority of the public supports virtually all of the recent major rulings, including the ban on racial gerrymandering.

It is only the Democrats who oppose those rulings and are now demanding a hostile takeover of the Court.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has called for packing the Court because it does not follow her views and those of “widely held public opinion.” I have pushed back on that rationale, given the Court’s function as a countermajoritarian institution. However, these polls even challenge the flawed rationale for court packing.

So Jeffries is promising that the work of James Madison will be undone by the likes of Jamie Raskin and Elizabeth Warren. To have these calls on our 250th anniversary is crushingly ironic.  Other leading Democrats have lined up to pledge to fundamentally change the Court, which has played a key role in making this the oldest and most stable republic in history.

It is simply about power. Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has put packing the Supreme Court front and center, explaining, “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.”

I have called it the Nike School of Constitutional Law. Democratic leaders are pledging to “just do it” to appease the mob. Of course, some of these measures would be challenged if done without constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court would then have to rule on the effort to pack or limit its members. The expansion can be done by legislative vote. Although most Americans oppose court packing, Democrats view control of the Court as essential to pushing through a radical agenda to change the political system to their advantage.

Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.

In Federalist 10, Madison discussed the destructive impact of factions in forcing through opportunistic changes to advance their interests:

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

We are witnessing the same factional politics being pushed by leaders who believe that they can ride a rage wave into power. They have a greater likelihood of causing lasting damage to our system than guaranteeing their own lasting power. History is not on their side. Today’s revolutionaries are often tomorrow’s reactionaries in an age of rage.

Keep reading

Woke 2.0 Will Be Worse

Readers familiar with Dr. Seuss’s classic, The Cat in the Hat, will remember the twin chaos agents Thing 1 and Thing 2.

“‘These Things are good Things,’” the Cat reassures the children whose mother has inexplicably left them under the supervision of a fish.

“‘They are tame. Oh, so tame! / They have come here to play.’”

The Things briefly feign innocence, then quickly reveal themselves to be marauding imps, knocking over nightstands and ruining the linens.

“I do not like the way that they play!” says the son of the house.

Now here comes Woke 1 and Woke 2.

“Woke 1 was crazy,” said U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, quoting an unnamed city councilman in a viral interview for ABC. The congresswoman sheepishly acknowledged that Americans did not like the way Woke 1 played out, while also implicitly announcing that there will soon be, or already is, a Woke 2. And it will be tame. Oh, so tame!

There is, in fact, a new version of wokeness in the making. But just as Thing 2 was fundamentally identical to Thing 1, Woke 2 will not be any different in essence from Woke 1. They are both here to upend the furniture.

Wokeness in all its forms is grievance politics.

Its central idea is that an injustice lies at the heart of America and must be corrected to atone for the historical misery inflicted on groups of innocents.

What is changing in Woke 2 is the account of who those innocents are, and how they have been wronged. Woke 1 was founded on the notion that black women are the most oppressed, and therefore most righteous, of all people. “I’m thinking,” said Kamala Harris in her vice presidential victory speech, “about the generations of women—black women.” She mentioned many other kinds of women, of course, but the list began and ended with “the black women—who are too often overlooked, but so often prove that they are the backbone of this country.”

This approach had rhetorical power, up to a point. It traded on the successes of second-wave feminism and the reality of black slavery in America’s past. But it ran into some problems. Third-wave feminism, as worked out by theorists like Judith Butler, made it basically impossible not to affix the prefix “trans-” wherever the word “woman” appeared. So the flag of Woke 1 became the complicated and confusing progress pride flag—a gay rainbow with black and trans colors intruding from the left.

To make matters worse, the legacy of slavery did not actually touch all the racial minorities that Democrats wanted to bring into their fold. Most Nigerians, for example, had not experienced segregation in the United States. Nor had the millions of unvetted South and Central Americans streaming across the border. They were certainly “people of color.” But so were Chinese, Japanese, and Indian Americans, whose typically enviable life outcomes fit awkwardly into the narrative that the country was built on a ruthless caste system.

The contradictions heightened as Woke 1 faced a series of embarrassments such as Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the 2023 Supreme Court case in which Asian students complained that admissions officers were discriminating against them in favor of black applicants. Then there were the notorious Trump ’24 ads that pinned Harris to her previous support of taxpayer-funded gender surgeries for federal prison inmates. Placing black women at the center of the moral universe created an unexpected and electorally unworkable set of obligations to illegal immigrants and queer felons.

Clearly, the coalition needed shuffling. And so rearranging the order of priorities in the grievance hierarchy is what the reinvention of woke has actually been about. In place of the black trans woman who defined Woke 1, Woke 2 has chosen as its ideal victim the dispossessed Palestinian liberationist, fighting with Hamas against Israel. This has a number of interesting strategic advantages.

Keep reading

UK Left Blames Death of Ex-Cambridge Professor Arday on ‘Racism’, Media Scrutiny of Plagiarism Claims

British leftists have attempted to blame racism and media scrutiny for the untimely death of former Cambridge professor Jason Arday, who sensationally resigned last week amid plagiarism allegations and accusations of fabricating his backstory.

On Friday afternoon, Cambridge’s youngest-ever Black professor, Jason Arday, was found dead at a London address at the age of 41, just days after resigning from his post as professor of sociology of education amid swirling controversy and claims that he had engaged in plagiarism.

According to a Substack article last month from University of Ghent philosopher Nathan Cofnas, who was fired from Cambridge’s Emmanuel College in 2024 after expressing race-realist views on IQ differences, Arday’s thesis had been flagged by plagiarism-detection software.

It then emerged that Cambridge had been alerted to potential plagiarism in his thesis and in other papers by Plymouth Marjon University Emeritus Professor Dave Harris in 2023, yet the university only launched an investigation into the matter earlier this month.

London’s Daily Telegraph reported that it had “identified more than 100 passages that are identical or nearly identical to a 2009 PhD thesis by Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, a Brunel University student.”

On top of allegations of plagiarism, questions were also raised over Arday’s supposedly remarkable early life, as he claimed to have risen to the top of academia despite allegedly being unable to talk until the age of 11 and being unable to read or write until he was 18 as a supposed result of autism. Arday also previously boasted of having run 30 marathons in 35 days, partly while suffering from a leg fracture.

Amid the controversy, the previous media darling resigned on August 5th, claiming that the “relentless accusations, speculation and public commentary have taken a profound toll on me and on those I love.”

Less than ten days later, he was found dead. A spokesman for London’s Metropolitan Police said on Friday that his “death is being treated as unexpected, but is not believed to be suspicious.” The left-wing Guardian newspaper reported that the force is “understood not to believe anyone else was involved in the death.”

Despite limited information about the circumstances of his death, prominent left-wing figures were quick to blame the media scrutiny and “racism” for Arday’s death. For example, far-left Labour MP Nadia Whittome said that Arday was “hounded by the British press in a way that went far beyond scrutiny, was disproportionate, and simply would not have happened to a white, middle class person in the same position.”

Keep reading

CAUGHT: Comey’s Wife Texted Him Meaning of “86” Minutes Before His “86 47” Beach Stunt

Investigative reporter Paul Sperry posted a damning update to the Jim Comey “86 47” beach story on Friday.

According to Paul, there is evidence that Jim Comey’s wife Patricia sent him a Google screenshot of a non-violent definition of the term “86” two minutes before Comey posted his infamous rock picture of “86-47” on Instagram.

Paul Sperry: BREAKING: An FBI affidavit for a search warrant in the James Comey presidential threat case reveals his wife Patrice Comey sent him a Google screenshot of a nonviolent definition of the term “86” two (2) minutes before Comey posted the alleged threat against President Trump, indicating some forethought his posting could be construed as a threat.”

86 is a common street term for murder. Comey and his wife thought they were being cute.

Comey was also one of the leaders along with Barack Obama and John Brennan who decided to run a coup against the US President during Trump’s first term in office.

James Comey posted his threatening ‘8647’ Instagram post last May.

“Cool shell formation on my beach walk,” Comey said.

Keep reading

THAT WAS FAST: Seattle’s New Socialist Mayor Katie Wilson Already Facing Recall Effort

Seattle’s new socialist Mayor Katie Wilson took office a little more than six months ago and is already facing a recall effort.

In July, she faced real scrutiny from the press when she fired the city’s police chief following a shooting. She was also in the news for urging trans ‘refugees’ to come to the city for taxpayer funded care.

There’s no telling whether or not the recall effort will work. It’s not easy to remove an elected official from office unless they’re facing real criminal charges.

FOX 13 in Seattle reports:

Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson recall charges: What to know

Two people in Seattle have filed a recall charge against Mayor Katie Wilson, alleging she has “neglected her legal duty to maintain public safety and peace.”

The recall comes amid a slew of city controversies, the latest being the continued fallout from the deadly Bite of Seattle shooting, and the forced resignation of Police Chief Shon Barnes.

Melinda Jacobson and Dale Osterud filed the paperwork with the King County Elections Office on Tuesday, Aug. 11, alleging that Wilson is “derelict in her duties for public safety” of the City of Seattle.

The recall charge points to five specific events: the forced resignation of then-Police Chief Shon Barnes, shootings and sex trafficking in the North Aurora neighborhood, crime and drug use in the Chinatown International District, crime in Belltown and the deactivation of CCTV cameras for police use around the city.

The filing outlines safety issues across several Seattle areas, including North Aurora, Chinatown International District, Belltown and Third Avenue.

In North Aurora, residents reported sex trafficking, prostitution and gun battles putting bullets through homes and businesses between January and June. Neighbors installed temporary gunfire barriers that the mayor had removed on June 6, though SDOT later placed trial barriers after a June 30 meeting.

Keep reading