“Notice how whenever someone comes out and says, ‘yeah, that’s actually a bad association,’ immediately it’s weaponized by the Republicans. This is why you can’t. This is why you have to have discipline. This is why you have to abide by the party line. Okay. You can’t be out here doing that. You can’t be out here saying like, ‘oh, I’m a centrist Democrat and I think Abdul is a bridge too far.’ That must be punished and If there’s one Marxist-Leninist doctrine that the Democratic Party should deploy, it’s that. Okay, follow the party line.”
–Democrat Party “influencer” Hasan Piker, demanding that all Democrats be forced to accept and promote Marxism.
Democrats are already Communist adjacent. The party has been for years. Do you remember President Clinton’s first term, when Hillary was pushing for a complete government takeover of healthcare? That effort failed, but it is still a goal of so-called “moderate” Democrats, as well as the more radical socialist/communist wing of the party.
The Democrats want government involved in every aspect of your life. What you eat, where you live, what kind of car you drive, what medical treatment you receive . . . EVERYTHING! Because the lust for power. They see you as subjects, not citizens. They know better how you should live your lives, and you will follow their directives. They, of course, will be exempt from their directives. Remember Obamacare? It applied to all of you. It did not apply to Congress or their staffs.
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
–George Orwell, 1984.
Did you realize that if you doubt that the 2020 presidential elections were “fair”, then you are an “election denier”? Congressional Democrats are demanding that all presidential nominees answer the very stupid question as to who won the presidency in 2020. If a nominee does not say unequivocally that China Joe won “fair and square”, then he is a “coward” and an “election denier”.
On the State and local level, Democrats are opposing “election deniers” be allowed to run for office, being appointed to office, or even to volunteer at polling places. Democrats assert that these people–“election deniers”–are a “threat to our democracy”.
But, but, but . . . this question has been litigated in the courts, and every time Donald Trump and the Republicans lost. That is false. The matter was never litigated in the courts, as every court dismissed the suits without ever hearing evidence or reaching the merits of the case. There was never a trial. Never.
The Federalist editor Mollie Hemingway wrote an excellent book about the 2020 presidential elections, titled Rigged. In a documented, scholarly presentation, Mrs. Hemingway outlines how Democrats used The [former] Current Unpleasantness to make it easier to cheat, and to rig the elections processes to favor Democrats. It is a good read. The book does not conclude that Mr. Trump won the election. Rather, the book outlines the methods implemented which might demonstrate that China Joe did not win the election.
Is Mollie Hemingway an “election denier”? Should she be slandered at a Congressional hearing? Should she be denied any participation in the holding of her local elections?
No.
____________________________________________________________________
Is ‘Communist’ No Longer a Slur?
BY: Victor Davis Hanson (August 6, 2026).
It is not difficult, these days, to see the neo-communist flipside of “Democratic Socialists” — once they find power.
Indeed, the more the ossified Democratic Party claims that its growing cadre of socialist renegades are not really socialists, the more they act like — and even appear comfortable being called — communists.
With every new policy they propose, the socialists have been dropping the pretense that they are not Marxists.
How about declaring capitalism a failure?
All the socialists now do that — and even Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom has also started agreeing that “capitalism as we know it doesn’t work either.” Oddly, Newsom himself, a multimillionaire and a beneficiary of arch-capitalist Gordon Getty’s largesse, seems to have done quite well under capitalism.
Confiscating private property?
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani claims he will do just that if New York’s landlords, in his opinion, are poor custodians of their own property.
Dismantling the U.S. Constitution?
Almost all Democrats have long called for destroying the 238-year-old Electoral College. And now the socialists openly brag that, when they take over the Democratic Party and then the nation, they will, as good Bolsheviks, go much further: destroying the Senate, destroying the Pentagon, destroying prisons, destroying the police, and destroying our borders.
And they want to take over utilities, break up or absorb corporate agriculture, and own major industries. Apparently, socialists believe that with a snap of their fingers they can destroy key elements of the U.S. constitutional order. Would these “socialists” even resent their agenda being called “communist”?
They also seem to have taken their cue for such radical change from “mainstream” Democrats — for example, Kamala Harris. Now in her third vain bid for the presidency, she has adopted the doctrine of “if you can’t beat them, join them.” So Harris now promises that if she is elected, she will pack the court, admit two new blue states (to snag four liberal senators), end the filibuster, and junk the Electoral College. How she plans to amend the Constitution to that effect she never tells us.
Like all good Marxists, these “ends-justify-the-means” leftists show an utter lack of principle: If two new red states wished to join the U.S., they would lecture us on the sanctity of a 50-state union. If they were a permanent Senate minority, they would, as in the past, honor the filibuster. If they had lost the popular vote in two recent elections but won the Electoral College, they would praise the wisdom of the Founders. If they had their Earl Warren-era majority again, they would laud the continuity of the 157-year-old nine-justice Supreme Court.
How about making “enemies of the people” lists and forcing sales of private property?
Mamdani just sent out a public list of nearly one million New York homeowners. He sent official warnings to 17,000 of these property owners that, if within four weeks they cannot prove that they have lived full-time in their own properties, the city will levy a huge surtax on them to drive home the point that no one should own an additional high-value home. Are show trials next for those who decline to reply?
In other words, Mamdani has flipped the American tradition of “innocent until proven guilty.” Instead, almost 20,000 New Yorkers are now automatically presumed guilty of being house-hoarding, capitalist leeches who owe the exploited classes tens of thousands of dollars a year in reparations, unless they — the newly presumed guilty — can prove themselves innocent.
Welcome to Mamdani’s revolutionary court.
Mamdani’s new surtax could add from $40,000 to $350,000 a year to tens of thousands of homeowners’ taxes — in addition to already-existing steep property taxes that often range from $5,000 to $150,000.
Most owners will do the math and see that the new aggregate tax payouts in just a few years could be more than the value of the home itself.
Why is Mamdani doing this?
The socialist mayor’s aim here seems twofold:
First, he wants to flush out and dox anyone owning two homes as a purported enemy of the people.
And so, Mamdani created a list of his targets, including their addresses, and published it.
To the extent that many properties really were second homes, Mamdani has now made sure that all New Yorkers, including envious rubberneckers, would-be squatters, and hardened criminals, know exactly where they might target a sometimes-vacant home.
Second, he wants to force a massive fire sale of second homes that would crash home values in general and so redistribute now “affordable” houses to those whom Mamdani considers, as victims of capitalism, to be more deserving of these properties.
Recently, on cable news, the national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America,
Megan Romer, was asked a series of questions about her group’s published agenda. Far from denying its communist radicalism, she gleefully confirmed it all — from destroying the border to ending prisons, the military, and the police.
But it is in Spain, and Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s corrupt and unpopular regime, where we see what one-eyed-jack socialists can do when they are finally in power, especially when they are hated and on their way out.
Sanchez has given amnesty to 600,000 illegal aliens. One result was that 60,000 Muslim men from North Africa in a single day recently swarmed Spain’s colonial outpost on the Moroccan coast at Ceuta, demanding amnesties and free subsidized passes into European Spain — while looting and vandalizing businesses and attacking Spaniards.
So why do European socialists and American leftists, once elected, destroy borders, create conditions of mass chaos, and welcome in millions of illegal aliens — poor, often angry, and unassimilated — from the Third World?
Aside from their belief that the capitalists and their bourgeois hirelings deserve chaos, violence, and upheaval, they hate the fact that capitalism is too class-fluid to furnish a permanent exploited proletarian underclass.
And so they import a huge victim class, and virtue signal their purported moral superiority. Then they spend lavish social largesse upon the influx, and, in quid pro quo fashion, thus bind their imported underclass with their welfare-state assurances.
Mail-in and early ballots, no-ID voting, same-day registration, ballot harvesting and curing, and no final verdicts on Election Day were all leftist projects, all designed to enroll as many illegal voters as possible.
The Left has also learned from experience that the time between immigrant parents fleeing third-world hellholes to find safety, freedom, and prosperity in the U.S. and their children hating the very generous host that welcomed them — and demanding that America be radically transformed to resemble the catastrophe from which they or their parents fled — is often only about 20 years.
So if one enjoys watching the careers of Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, AOC, or Mamdani, then one should certainly vote socialist to ensure that they are the new model for American elected officials.
It is the paradox of our age that anyone can flee Somalia, the West Bank, Puerto Rico, or Uganda and then win the global lottery by being accepted into America’s constitutional society and free-market economy — only to do their best to repay the generosity of their host by turning their new country into something unrecognizable to the prior 10 generations of Americans.
But then again, America might become quite similar to the mess they abandoned.
So far, the model holds true: Socialist candidates (as opposed to registered socialist activists) hide their communist-adjacent agendas during elections. But once in office and drunk with power, they find socialism too wishy-washy and go full communist. So they destroy borders, institutions, names, dates, statues, norms, customs, and traditions to replicate the illiberalism and concomitant failures of a new Haiti, a West Bank, or a Morocco in the West.
In sum, to make a new socialist America, you must first destroy everything that made Americans and all that they hold dear.
____________________________________________________________________
Meet America’s New Un-Americans… the DSA
From HUAC to today’s Democratic Socialists: A history of ideology, allegiance, and subversion.
BY: Paul Kengor, The American Spectator (August 6, 2024).
An all-time favorite whipping boy of the American Left is the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Most readers wouldn’t recognize the group by its proper acronym — HCUAA — but they certainly know the Left’s reordered, twisted acronym: the dread “HUAC.” That translates to the “House Un-American Committee.” Improperly rendered, yes, but the label has stuck. You can succeed at such propaganda when your ideology pervades the media, Hollywood, academia, the culture — what we at The American Spectator have long called the Kultursmog.
Note the cynical repackaging of the committee and its mission: The Left, and especially far-left communist organs such as the Daily Worker, attempted to recast this important committee of the U.S. House of Representatives as un-American itself. That was a rather audacious move by the comrades, given who they were, and what the committee was not. The fact is that HCUAA had been run by Democrats and Republicans alike throughout its existence — by solid, bipartisan congressmen. The Democrat chairs of the House Committee on Un-American Activities ran from Rep. Martin Dies (D-TX) in the 1930s, to Rep. Francis Walter (D-PA), to Rep. Richard Ichord (D-MO) in the 1970s.
No, dear progressive snowflake, “HUAC” wasn’t run by villainous Republican Joe McCarthy. Senator McCarthy was, uh, in the Senate — where, incidentally, he was often joined by stalwart anti-communist Democrats like John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Pat McCarran of Nevada, James Eastland of Mississippi, and Thomas Dodd of Connecticut, the latter two being anti-communist pillars on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and chair and vice chair of the outstanding Subcommittee on Internal Security. Those guys exposed countless self-proclaimed “progressives” as in fact closet communists. For this, they have never been forgiven by the Left and forever vilified by liberal historians.
Nonetheless, the task of “HUAC” was a noble one. It was charged with investigating extremist elements within the United States, whether they be fascists, communists, American sympathizers of Nazis (the German-American Bund), or American Bolsheviks. The committee members were tasked with defending America, and they thus wanted to know whether certain fifth-column elements were working to subvert the system from within. The American Left, of course, had no problem when the reviled “HUAC” was investigating closet Nazis, but as soon as the committee set its sights on Soviet supporters, well — hell’s bells — that was downright un-American!
And yet, what could be more un-American than, say, the oath sworn by members of the American Communist Party in the 1930s? It went like this: “I pledge myself to rally the masses to defend the Soviet Union, the land of victorious socialism. I pledge myself to remain at all times a vigilant and firm defender of the Leninist line of the party, the only line that insures the triumph of Soviet Power in the United States.” This particular oath was issued in 1935, just as Joseph Stalin was ramping up his Great Terror that annihilated tens of millions.
Yes, that was the oath to which these American Stalinists swore their allegiance. They were loyal Soviet patriots, literally pledged by oath to defend socialism and the Soviet Union. As American Communist Party chief William Z. Foster candidly told Congress during his testimony in 1930, their flag was the red flag, not the stars and stripes. Sure, they might have been American citizens, but they certainly didn’t support America as conceived by the founding fathers. They wanted to replace the American system with a Soviet system. As Langston Hughes put it, “Put one more ‘S’ in the USA to make it Soviet. The USA when we take control will be the USSA.” Or as William Z. Foster called it, a “Soviet America.”
And yet, when these American Bolsheviks were called to testify before Congress on their pro-Soviet activities to subvert the American system — and were asked if they were now or had ever been a member of that Leninist-Stalinist party pledged to the USSR rather than the USA — what did they do?
They wrapped themselves in the very American flag and U.S. Constitution that they secretly wanted to torch. They pleaded the First Amendment, and they pleaded the Fifth Amendment. The temerity of the whole thing was breathtaking, almost laughable if not so serious.
And yet — and yet — when a committee like “HUAC” called them out for being what they obviously were — which was un-American — they cried foul at the mere suggestion. Shouldn’t the accusation have been a badge of honor to these intrepid comrades?
All of which brings me to the American Left’s newest assemblage of un-Americans. It is the Democratic Socialists of America, which rightly bills itself “the largest socialist organization in the United States.”
I’ve followed the DSA and its members for years, writing about them consistently at The American Spectator. I’ve warned about their cynical strategy to take over the Democratic Party. For this, I was called paranoid, akin to what “HUAC” committee members were called by the Left back in the day. They and I alike, you see, saw a red under every bed. But in truth, all you needed to do was follow these people and see what they were saying.
To that end, a central figure who candidly spoke to this strategy was Justice Democrats founder Cenk Uygur, who said, “What we need to do is take over the Democratic Party. We’re going to primary all of the establishment Democrats …. all vulnerable Democrats.” Collaborating with the DSA and its members-candidates, Uygur declared: “We want hundreds. We want to replace Congress.” He rightly noted that if they could elect to Congress a dozen or two individuals like Congressgirl Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, “People would freak the hell out.”
The enemy is inside the gates, armed with its ideas.
Uygur said that over 10 years ago, and now folks are indeed freaking the hell out. Today’s Democrats are no longer scoffing. They’re sweating. They’re screaming. That would include the cackling, screeching, ragin’ Cajun James Carville. “I have no intention of ever being in the same political party with that guy,” Carville says of Hasan Piker — one of the comrades. “Now, I think that a majority — overwhelming majority of Democrats agree with me — but this idea that we’re going to seize the means of production and this — just go look at the DSA platform.”
Old Serpent Head Carville isn’t alone in his angst. He and traditional Democrats are looking at that DSA platform and are terrified at the very real prospect of DSA members hijacking their party with their socialist Trojan Horse. Actually, it isn’t even a Trojan Horse anymore. It’s out in the open, as are the Marxist sympathies and networks of the DSA’s leadership. (RELATED: The Communists Inside the DSA)
The enemy is inside the gates, armed with its ideas.
Speaking of which, it’s a self-evident truth that socialism, communism, and Marxism are antithetical to the ideals the American system was founded upon. Any reading of the writings of leading socialists, communists, and Marxists makes that plain as day. Take a mere few hours to read the very brief Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels. It blatantly goes against everything the American founders believed.
But if that wasn’t already obvious to everyday Americans at a theoretical level, the DSA is currently making it so obvious that a 5th-grader in an elementary school civics class can tell the difference. Today’s DSA members running for office as Democrats are openly calling for a radical restructuring of the American system. They’re not shy about it. Barack Obama was devious enough not to give details when he called for a “fundamental transformation” of the United States of America. But these people? They’re not hiding anything. They’re sharing their vision in media interviews with stunned reporters (including CNN reporters) and with slick pamphlets posted online with full transparency.
You’ve heard the comments from DSA members-turned-Democratic Party candidates like Francesca Hong or from DSA co-chair Megan Romer, calling for everything from replacing to cancelling to abolishing prisons, the police, Thanksgiving, the presidency, the U.S. Supreme Court, to, hell, Congress itself. If you’re looking for formal statements on the record, you need go no further than clicking the current program for the Democratic Socialists of America at its website. The PDF is 20 pages long and includes official positions that call for everything from eliminating the Department of Defense (dubbed the “Department of War”) to “fully abolishing the police and prison system” to “Abolish the Senate…. Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”
The DSA’s “program for ending capitalist oligarchy and creating a real democracy” includes demands for “public ownership of the largest corporations.”
And of course, being that these people are cultural-sexual-moral maniacs, their platform also includes such gems as a “socialist feminism” that “fights for queer liberation” and ends “patriarchal restrictions on abortion, childbirth and childraising, gender expression and transition.”
What can we say about these ideas? Obviously, they’re infantile — what our founder, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., once described as “wombistic leftism.” They’re idiotic — as moronic as their (and Zohran Mamdani’s) new-fangled “municipal socialism.” They’re many things. They are many troubling things. We could all lay out a litany of just how bad they are and why.
But for here, for now, it should suffice to say that these ideas — and those behind them — are quintessentially un-American. Yes, these people may be American citizens, but they are un-American. They are the Un-Americans.
____________________________________________________________________
The author of the article below, Julian Epstein, is a long time Democrat. He served as the Chief Counsel for Democrats on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. He is as liberal–not crazy, not a commie–as they come. We patronized the same D.C. newstand in the ’80s; I would buy The American Spectator, he would buy The Nation. But today, Julian Epstein is about as welcome in the Democrat Party as I would be. And he has had enough. Enjoy his thoughts.
I’m a longtime Democrat — fighting for GOP’s Mike Rogers, and my party’s soul, in Michigan
BY: Julian Epstein, The New York Post (August 6, 2026).
President John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address, may have said it best: “In the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.”
It was a warning to those who tolerate the rise of authoritarian communism that they will inevitably end up next on the dinner menu.
Michigan Democrats, in nominating Abdul El-Sayed for Senate on Tuesday, seem to be riding the back of that tiger.
But not me. I’m climbing off the beast.
After decades of giving my all for Democratic House and Senate candidates, this fall I will support — and contribute to — Mike Rogers, Michigan’s GOP Senate nominee, instead.
And I’ll do everything I can to make sure other Democrats follow.
With the exception of Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, my party’s leaders have sought to appease the dangerous faction rising in our midst.
Weak, timid figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are spouting empty clichés — “We are a big-tent party” — while abdicating their moral and political responsibilities.
Democrats aren’t coddling Scandinavian-style socialists; they’re getting into bed with a nihilistic, deconstructionist brand of third-worldism.
It’s an ideology that seeks the elimination of prisons, policing, borders, the Senate, the presidency, the Supreme Court and democratic free markets.
A worldview that aligns with genocidal jihadist movements like Hamas.
A generation ago, the left would’ve recognized this cadre as Trojan horse doing the bidding of our adversaries.
But not today.
And as working-class voters flee an increasingly toxic Democratic brand, the party’s newfound embrace of anti-American extremists is likely to produce big losses nationally — and a civil war within.
In Michigan in particular, Rogers will frame a devastating portrait of El-Sayed that will further damage the party’s deteriorating image.
El-Sayed parrots Sen. Bernie Sanders’ delusion that attaches no importance to generating wealth — and only cares about redistributing it.
He expresses sympathy for Mideastern terrorist movements that masquerade as liberation efforts, giving cover to terror attacks on Jewish synagogues in the US (“hurt people hurt people”) and going to absurd lengths to avoid offending supporters of Iran’s slain Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
He doesn’t believe the planet’s only Jewish state has a right to exist.
Hasan Piker, his principal campaign surrogate, blames the U.S. for 9/11 and professes his love for China’s madman dictator Mao Zedong, who slaughtered millions of his own people.
Piker praised Hamas after the Oct. 7 massacre and cites every oppressive tyrant from Fidel Castro to Nicolas Maduro as his guiding lights.
Democrats can’t run from this lunacy in November.
The “we are a big tent” evasion will sound like what it is: a craven concession to extremism in hopes of rebuilding a political party that’s fallen into decadence.
The enraged exuberance exhibited at El-Sayed’s Keffiyeh-laden watch party Tuesday night blinds the asylum’s inmates to post-election reality.
After all, El-Sayed received support just 12.5% of Michigan’s registered voters — mostly from the radical professional class of white college graduates — while underperforming in black, brown and working-class districts.
This summer’s third-wordlist wave is the tiger Kennedy warned of.
It’s a recipe for moral decay — and for political suicide.
Democrats lost in 2024 because they were too far to the left of the median American voter.
Now they’re racing even further in that disastrous direction.
Kennedy’s adage suggests the only way to address extremism is to defeat it.
Fetterman, and a few other Dems like New Jersey Rep. Josh Gottheimer and consultant James Carville, seem to get that — and they’re warning of a coming intraparty civil war.
Some in Michigan are hinting at mass party defections in November.
And El-Sayed’s new prominence means the bleeding won’t stop.
Democrats in many districts will be forced on the campaign trail to distance themselves from El-Sayed or denounce him — and every one of their comments will write another permission slip for party defections come fall.
To arrest this freefall, Democratic leaders must do more than just tell the extremists to find another party; they must also admit that post-modern liberalism is failing.
The more we spend on the welfare state, it seems, the worse the outcomes.
We spend over $40,000 per student in New York City public schools, and few can read or do math.
The politics of identify grievance gives no one greater agency or know-how to succeed; it’s black-pilling an entire generation with a victim mindset that will only hold them back.
Perversely, the Democratic Socialists argue we need more of what’s failing.
But America’s future depends on teaching our people how to build, not how to take from others or peddle whining complaints.
Until Democrats understand that, the defections will keep on coming.
GFK
