Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) responded to a recent poll that found that more than half of Democrats have a positive view of socialism over capitalism, stating that "this is lunacy."

The post John Fetterman Responds to Poll That Democrats Hold Positive View of Socialism: ‘This Is Lunacy’ appeared first on Breitbart.

On its face this seems like a rather remarkable statement from President Trump.  However, below the surface the geopolitical ramifications are perhaps not as surprising. Today, President Trump notes the administration is shifting its position of military support toward South Korea. PRESIDENT TRUMP – Based on my very good relationship with Kim Jong Un, of […]

The post President Trump Makes a Surprise Announcement on U.S. Military Support to South Korea appeared first on The Last Refuge.

Fort Worth, Texas, police say an intruder died following a shootout with a homeowner on Saturday around 3:30 p.m.

The post Texas Police: Intruder Dead After Shootout with Homeowner appeared first on Breitbart.

More than half of Democrats hold a more positive view of socialism as opposed to capitalism, according to a recent CBS News/YouGov poll.

The post Poll: 58 Percent of Democrats Hold Positive View of Socialism over Capitalism appeared first on Breitbart.

THE WASHINGTON STAND—The curtain is being pulled back on the reckless disregard for health and safety displayed during the COVID-19 vaccination rollout—and it’s an opportunity for our country to right more than one wrong.

“Since many people have significant cytokines storm and fever after the 2nd dose, this theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester,” Dr. Anthony Fauci wrote in texts revealed on Monday, going on to add that, “One must weigh the potential risks against the benefits.”

Who exactly was weighing the risks and benefits? Not pregnant women themselves, since Fauci never shared his concerns about miscarriage publicly, instead telling the world there were “no red flags” for pregnant mothers receiving the vaccine.

This month, I’m mourning what should have been the due date for the little one I miscarried. Not one day of this awful year has gone by when that child hasn’t been at the forefront of my mind.

I wept on my birthday, knowing I would never light candles for that baby’s cake. I stared aimlessly at the ocean on family vacation, thinking about how that little one would never feel the sand between her toes. And always, wherever I go, I carry the weight of wondering, “If I had just done something differently, would she still be here?”

I know my miscarriage wasn’t due to the COVID vaccine (I didn’t get one). But as the risks of these shots are brought to light, I’m painfully aware of the incalculable harm that Anthony Fauci and other federal agents have inflicted on mothers across the country by robbing them of informed consent.

Can you imagine how many moms woke up today wondering, “If I had just skipped the vaccine, would my baby still be here?” I can only pray these moms find peace in knowing that, if the vaccine truly did play a role in their loss, it wasn’t their fault.

I want accountability for Fauci and justice for the moms and unborn children he knowingly put at risk. But I also want those currently serving in our federal government to take a good look in the mirror before concluding they would never make the same mistakes.

In September of 2025, the FDA announced that it would conduct a safety review of the abortion drug mifepristone. Nearly a year later, we are still awaiting the results of this review – and, in the meantime, this lethal drug has proliferated without meaningful regulation, even in states that legally protect unborn life.

Meanwhile, the DOJ has thus far refused to walk back a Biden-era policy that allows abortion drugs to be shipped through the mail in violation of the Comstock Act, a longstanding federal law.

Mifepristone is dangerous for women even under the “best” of conditions. A recent study indicated that nearly 11% of women who take the drug experience a serious adverse event, a rate 22 times higher than the one historically reported by the FDA and drug manufacturers. When we take into account that anyone, ranging from children to abusive boyfriends, can currently access this drug online, it’s clear that there’s no time to waste before creating meaningful protections for women and unborn children.

Fauci and other Biden administration officials who knowingly put pregnant mothers and their babies at risk deserve harsh accountability. But we can’t stop there. Moms like me are tired of our health and our children’s health being stuck on the back burner.

It’s high time that the federal government creates meaningful protections for pregnant mothers and their babies by removing FDA approval for the lethal abortion drug mifepristone and enforcing the Comstock Act.

Originally published by The Washington Stand.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Three-time NASCAR Cup Series champion Joey Logano led for 95 of the 400 laps at Richmond Raceway this weekend on his way to a narrow victory over Chase Briscoe in the Cook Out 400.

“Kind of a fun, back-and-forth battle. Had some strategy there, too. A typical Richmond race,” Logano said afterward. It’s the third time in his career that Logano has taken the checkered flag at Richmond Raceway.

NASCAR has been racing in the state capital since 1953, when Lee Petty won on a half-mile dirt track. That route was paved in 1968, and the track was reconfigured to its current layout in 1988. “Qualifying here is extremely, extremely technical,” Virginia native Denny Hamlin said this week. “I would say it’s probably the hardest to qualify to hit your marks.”

Yet Saturday night’s event was NASCAR’s only visit to Richmond this season. The city hosted two races every year beginning in 1958 but lost its second race after 2024. That weekend is now used for a race in Mexico City.

Before the schedule change was announced, Hamlin pointed the finger at a lack of fan support at the track. “If the fans turned out here and we sold out every race, then there would be two races,” the NASCAR Cup Series points leader said two years ago. “They’re going to do things that the fans want to participate in. What’s crazy is that it’s always one of our top five [ratings] markets that watch us on TV, but [they] don’t actually come to the racetrack itself.”

Attendance is trending up, however, with a full house on hand this weekend. “To sell out the Cook Out 400 for the second year in a row shows just how special Saturday night NASCAR racing is for our fans at Richmond Raceway,” track president Lori Collier Waran told WWBT.

“We’re still committed to Richmond,” a NASCAR executive vice president told reporters in 2024. “It’s an important track, an important market, certainly, as we think about where our NASCAR fans are today. We’ve seen some exciting storylines certainly come out of that track over the past few years.”

Meanwhile, another Virginia track still holds two major races this year, and it will again host a pair in 2027. Next month, the ValleyStar Credit Union 300 will be held at Martinsville Speedway. It’s the third leg of the Virginia Triple Crown series. Kaden Honeycutt won the first race in June at South Boston Speedway, then Caden Kvapil took the second race at Langley Speedway last month.

On Nov. 1, Martinsville will host the Xfinity 500, the final race before the season-ending NASCAR Cup Series Championship Race in Miami. The track is known as “the paperclip” because of its unusual design: it’s a short track with hairpin corners that rewards strategy instead of simply celebrating raw engine power.

Overall, racing remains big business in the commonwealth. A study conducted for the Performance Racing Industry, a trade group, found that “motorsports generates $907.02 million in annual economic output, supports 5,555 jobs, provides $362.15 million in wages and benefits and contributes nearly $110 million in state and local taxes” in Virginia each year.

State Sen. Bill Stanley wants to protect that business. He started a caucus this year to promote and protect auto racing in Virginia. If lawmakers work together, “we cannot lose,” he said as the caucus was announced. One potential step would be to pass a “right-to-race” law that would allow tracks that had been operating before homes were built nearby to avoid noise lawsuits and continue to permit night racing.

THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—A newly released email suggests that the nation’s top vaccine regulator encouraged Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins to leverage billions in scientific research dollars to study COVID vaccine side effects—but they never followed through on her request.

In the spring of 2021, Janet Woodcock, then head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), wrote to the leaders of the National Institutes of Health—the country’s leading funder of medical science—to encourage a study into reports she had received of adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination.

Woodcock had received many of these reports from “healthcare professionals,” she wrote in the email released by Republican Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson and obtained from Fauci’s government email.

“The symptoms do not fit together into a distinctive syndrome and most are not easily quantifiable or evaluated with standard laboratory testing,” she wrote in the May 27, 2021 correspondence. “Clearly during mass vaccination you will get a lot of psychological reactions and it is hard to sort these things out. But the peoples’ main complaint is that no one takes them seriously, no one knows how to treat them, and there is no effort to study this.”

Woodcock said that these studies should be undertaken even if the vaccine makers would not support them.

“I doubt the industry would support, for obvious reasons,” she wrote in the email. “But my experience is, that if you let a problem fester, then it will come back to bite you later and you are not prepared.”

Woodcock was an FDA official for 37 years and cultivated a reputation for being friendly to the pharmaceutical industry and industry-backed patient groups. Yet she apparently recognized the importance of studying vaccine side effects outside of the context of the pharmaceutical companies’ clinical trials.

Woodcock warned that the existing safety surveillance systems at both the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were not be sophisticated enough to adequately detect and describe some side effects.

“These problems are not the sort that a system like VAERS would be able to detect, or even a more sophisticated population-based active followup [sic] such as CDC has, or a medical record based system such as BEST [an FDA safety surveillance system],” she said.

Despite the roughly $5.5 billion in research dollars that Fauci steered as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, it’s not clear the sort of study Woodcock suggested was ever conducted.

An April investigation by Johnson first revealed that another top FDA official, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Peter Marks, brushed off warnings from a safety data expert that FDA systems could be inadequately sensitive and missing statistically significant side effects. Marks said the analysis could “create erroneous conflicts that feed in to anti-vaccination rhetoric,” per Johnson’s report.

Fauci and Collins did not immediately respond to requests for comment. An email requesting comment from Marks sent through Eli Lilly, where he now serves as senior vice president of molecule discovery, did not receive an immediate response. An email requesting comment from Woodcock sent through Every Cure, a patient advocacy group with Woodcock on the board, did not receive an immediate response.

Regarding Woodock’s email, Fauci noted to Collins that “we cannot ignore her” and suggested alerting then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky.

“Janet [Woodcock] asks what we think of this? We cannot ignore her. We should probably bring in CDC and see what Rochelle [Walensky] thinks,” he wrote.

Johnson’s office noted in a press release that it’s not clear whether she ever was.

When Republicans retook control of the Senate in 2025, Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul gained the chairmanship of the key the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC) and began the process of compelling testimony and subpoenaing records. Johnson simultaneously also became chair of the HSGAC’s chief investigative subcommittee.

Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Democratic Socialists of America website called deceased Cuban dictator Fidel Castro a “stalwart symbol of anti-imperialist struggle and self-determination,” while denouncing Secretary of State Marco Rubio as genocidal.

In a tribute to Castro on what would have been his 100th birthday Thursday, the DSA website commemorated the “historic significance of both this day and the man.”

The fast-growing socialist organization that’s made strong inroads in Democratic Party primary elections over the past year, said that they have “a long history of solidarity with the Cuban people, their revolution, and their self-determination.”

The DSA statement said that it used the Castro commemoration to “recommit ourselves to acting in solidarity with the Cuban people,” and to “opposing Marco Rubio’s genocidal war against the Cuban people and US imperialism writ large.”

They blasted the Trump administration but directed particularly strong criticism toward Rubio.

“The Trump Administration, under the leadership of Marco Rubio, is waging an indiscriminate war against the Cuban people and killing women, children, and babies by illegally blockading critical resources from the Caribbean nation. By intentionally imposing conditions calculated to kill a civilian population, Marco Rubio is leading a genocide,” the DSA statement read. 

DSA then listed a series of demands.

• an end to the genocidal blockade
• an end to all threats of military violence against Cuba
• an end to all imperialist aggression against Cuba
• the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba
• reparations payments to be made to Cuba for the trillions of dollars in damages the blockade has cost the Cuban people 
• the prosecution of Marco Rubio for crimes against humanity

Other socialists also praised Castro this week including online influencer Hasan Piker who declared in a recent video, “I love [Vladimir] Lenin, I love Fidel Castro and I love Che Guevara. They are genuinely —- heroes.”

Social media users heaped criticism on the DSA for praising Castro and said that it was shameful for the organization to tout human rights while praising a brutal dictator.

Others called them anti-American.

Guy Benson at Fox News called the DSA “depraved commies.”

The State Department recently reported that Cuba has been a major source of far-Left activism and even terrorism in the United States and around the world since Castro came to power.

In a July report titled “Cuba: The Capital of 21st Century Communism,” the State Department explained how the small island nation has mastered spreading ideology as its chief export.

“To mistake Cuba’s poverty for harmlessness is to misunderstand the threat entirely,” the report argued. “Its material weakness was never the measure of its danger. Its power was always ideological, subversive, and parasitic—and it has proven remarkably durable, outlasting the Soviet empire that helped build it and grafting itself onto every new enemy of the United States that has arisen since.”

Rubio himself wrote on X Friday that Castro, “was a complete failure at everything except destroying Cuba and impoverishing, jailing and murdering his own people.

Rep. Carlos A. Gimenez, R-Fla., responded to Rubio, saying that Castro was a “serial-killer” who destroyed what was good about Cuba.

“Those who praise Castro belong with him in the ash heap of history!” he wrote.

Despite praising Castro, the DSA has reportedly said that it rejects “authoritarian visions of socialism.”

Three federal agencies gathered in San Diego on Wednesday to announce a new “treatment first” approach aimed at addressing California’s long-running homelessness crisis.

Since 2016, California has followed a “housing first” model after then-Gov. Jerry Brown required state-funded homelessness programs to incorporate its core components. On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)  jointly rolled out a different strategy. 

HUD Secretary Scott Turner exclusively told the Daily Signal the program pairs treatment with housing to build self-sufficiency among people experiencing homelessness.

“It’s not just treatment. What they’re used to is just housing. This is a totally different mindset. It’s treatment with housing. They have to go together. You can’t just house people and then leave them. That’s how you create a homeless industrial complex,” Turner said. “People literally getting placed inside of houses that are addicted to drugs and dying in that house because of housing first.”

“We are literally this continuum of care. It’s all in the name. You house them. You continue to treat them. You get them transformed, and then you get them to a life of self-sufficiency,” Turner added. “Again, there’s going to be pushback because people don’t want change. People don’t want transformation. People want the status quo.”

The administration describes the new approach as a first-of-its-kind toolkit that offers communities “practical and proven strategies to help Americans transition from homelessness and addiction to recovery and self-sufficiency.”

According to the toolkit, about 75% of homeless people struggle with addiction and an estimated 78% face mental illness. The framework outlines a seven-step process that includes street-level engagement, recovery-oriented housing, partnerships with faith-based and community organizations, and special attention to families and children.

The goal is for street outreach to move people into recovery programs, then through structured housing, employment, and independence, with clear accountability for results. The toolkit cites organizations already using similar methods, including Haven for Hope, Helping Up Mission, and The Mission at Kern County.

Haven for Hope published a 15-year review showing that 65% of people needed only one stay. Among those single-stay clients, more than 90% did not return to homelessness at the one-, five-, and 10-year marks. Housing retention after exit was roughly 92% to 94% still housed at 12 months.

In California, The Mission at Kern County reported placing 216 people into permanent housing in 2025 and celebrating 32 program graduates. In one job-training cohort with local partners, 90% of graduates received a job offer within 30 days and 82% remained employed later.

When asked what success would look like, Turner told the Daily Signal it would involve “public-private partnerships, faith-based entities coming together, private people coming together to attack homelessness by treatment, not just housing them.” 

“One at a time, one woman, one man, one family at a time. Get them off the streets. Treat their mental illness, drug addiction, domestic violence, prostitution, sex trafficking, whatever it may be,” Turner said. “Hit those head-on with industry experts, practitioners, the best of the best around the country, who are willing and able to do this. That’s who created our toolkit, along with HHS, us, and ONDCP.”

“The more people that you get healed and transformed out of mental illness, out of drug addiction, and to a life of self-sustainability, as you heard from the testimonies here today, it is possible,” Turner added. “There are many out here who have gone through treatment, housing, transformation, and now living their lives, getting their families back. That’s success. That’s what we’re after. Every waking moment that God gives us, that’s what we want to do.”

Under Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state has heavily promoted the housing first approach and spent an estimated $37 billion on housing and homelessness-related programs since the 2019-20 fiscal year, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office. The total includes major programs such as HHAP, Homekey, and Encampment Resolution Funding.

During the announcement, Turner told the Daily Signal he had not heard from the Newsom administration when asked about pushback as the announcement has just been rolled out.

“I’m not worried about pushback. Now I’m pushing back with policies. So no, I haven’t talked to them yet. But I don’t need to talk to them. What I need to do is get the right people at the table, the right partners at the table that want to be here to bring transformation, that want to help our most vulnerable people in our country as it pertains to homelessness,” Turner said. 

“So if Gov. Newsom, if Mayor [Karen] Bass, if they want to come to the table and talk about transformation, if they want to talk about treatment first and not housing first, I would welcome them,” Turner continued. “Them and anyone else that wants to join and do the right thing.”

A spokesperson for Newsom told the Daily Signal the administration’s work since 2019 has produced the “largest drop in unsheltered homelessness in 16 years,” citing “the Trump administration’s own data.”

“California’s work since 2019 to address homelessness and address a mental health crisis created under former Gov. Ronald Reagan has resulted in the largest drop in unsheltered homelessness in 16 years,” spokesperson Tara Gallegos stated. 

Despite Newsom previously citing a 9% decrease in unsheltered homelessness between 2024 and 2025, HUD’s full report released in July showed the actual decline was about 6.8%. Compared with when Newsom took office in 2019, unsheltered homelessness has risen roughly 6.8%, from 108,432 to 115,583 by 2025. 

Overall homelessness in the state has increased about 20% during his tenure, climbing from 151,278 in 2019 to 181,934 in 2025, according to HUD Point-in-Time counts.

Democrat state officials across the country have altered referendum language, which critics allege is aimed at manipulating the outcome of ballot measures this fall.

After California Attorney General Rob Bonta altered the language of California’s voter ID measure, Proposition 39, the Yes on 39 campaign alleged in court the alteration was misleading. A Sacramento judge on Aug. 7 sided with Bonta’s office, and the campaign supporting the measure has appealed the ruling.

Bonta changed the initial language from “Establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements,” to “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”

This month, supporters of a voter ID measure in Arizona sued Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, saying his office omitted key provisions and inserted political commentary into the language that will appear on ballots this fall.

Ballot measures in two New England states were scrapped after Democrat state officials were first accused of issuing misleading descriptions.

Changing the framing on the ballot for otherwise popular measures has been a longstanding power play of the Left, said Ken Cucinelli, chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative.

“This is a George Soros mentality with Saul Alinsky tactics,” Cucinelli told the Daily Signal. “Conservatives don’t like those tactics, but we just need to shut up and go win.”

Cucinelli, a former Virginia attorney general, added that Bonta’s changes to California’s voter ID measure are not the most egregious; rather, he noted Virginia Democrats’ failed attempt to pass a redistricting measure as among the “most extreme and outrageous” examples.

In April, the Democrat-controlled Virginia legislature crafted language asking voters to amend the constitution to “temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections.” The gerrymandering measure would have changed the state’s congressional map from a 6-5 Democrat advantage to a 10-1 Democrat advantage.

Republicans sued and objected that the ballot language was not neutral. A state judge blocked the measure in part because of the language, but the state Supreme Court allowed the referendum to go forward for a vote. The gerrymandered map won with 51%, but the state’s high court determined that the legislature bypassed normal legal procedures for ratifying a constitutional amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state high court’s ruling.

Politically motivated language can affect the outcome of a referendum, said Craig Burnett, chairman of the political science department at Florida Atlantic University. He co-authored a 2015 study that investigated the question.

“My coauthor and I picked two issues that were sticky for most voters and, as such, should not have been open to persuasion,” Burnett told the Daily Signal. “Simple changes to the text had significant impacts.”

However, he said, it’s difficult to know conclusively when altering ballot language changes an outcome of a real election.

“Unfortunately, we can never know,” he said. “Unless you have access to a simulated Florida where we can run two elections, we can only infer. If the election is close, it would be safe to infer the language matters.”

A separate 2021 study by Ted Rossier, political science professor at the University of North Georgia, found in one sampling “support for one measure was drastically reduced with the change in question framing.” However, the study found another sampling’s results were inconclusive; it also found that “experienced voters are no more immune to framing effects than inexperienced voters.”

Ballotpedia scores the readability of ballot measures, but not for bias. It measures readability based on metrics the Department of War used for troop manuals.

The organization evaluated 800 ballot measures and found that measures with more complex language are somewhat more likely to pass, said Ryan Byrne, the ballots team managing editor for Ballotpedia.

“Both sides tend to do this,” Byrne told the Daily Signal. “When you have elected officials writing the language for a ballot measure, it will likely be biased or at least be accused of bias.”

In Missouri, Republican Secretary of State Danny Hoskins approved ballot language for a measure that bans gender transition surgeries on minors and restricts some abortions and school transgender participation policies.

A state court ruled the language was insufficient because it didn’t tell voters the measure would repeal the “reproductive rights” ballot measure approved by voters in 2024. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling but went further by rewriting the ballot language.

Two ballot measures that likely would have passed were removed from the ballot this year in Maine and Massachusetts, one due to the language dispute.

In Massachusetts, a citizen-initiated ballot referendum to cut state income taxes from 5% to 4% had 66% public support in a Boston Globe and Suffolk University poll. Democrat leaders in the state legislature and unions warned it would create a budget shortfall.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, a Democrat, prepared a ballot summary stating the long-term capital-gains tax rate would remain unchanged. Opponents of the measure sued over the language, arguing that the initiative would actually reduce that rate as well.

In June, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the attorney general’s summary was not sufficiently fair and prevented the initiative from appearing on the 2026 ballot. Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote for the court, “The summary’s contrary statement is not a minor imprecision. It is significantly misleading and likely to influence voters.”

A since-removed citizen-initiated Maine “Protect Girls’ Sports” ballot measure would have prohibited biological boys from playing girls sports in schools.

While the matter is a moot point now, in April, Democrat Secretary of State Shenna Bellows altered the language of the measure. Her language would have asked voters if they wanted to “change civil rights and education laws to require public schools to restrict access to bathrooms and sports based on the gender on the child’s original birth certificate and allow students to sue the schools?”

Supporters objected to the framing in April, but by May, Bellows removed the measure from the November ballot, raising questions about 12,000 signatures. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court in July upheld her decision.

What binds the new Democratic Party to the new democratic socialists is a set of shared issues and values. That is, the radicalism of the Democrats in the age of Trump Derangement Syndrome—lawfare, de-balloting, the Mar-a-Lago raid, and calls to destroy the Electoral College, the nine-justice Supreme Court, and the filibuster—helped give birth to the socialists.

But the overriding commonality among those on the new Left is that if they do not get their way, they blame the “system.” Then they seek to change the rules, no matter how hallowed those laws and conventions may have been or how much they themselves benefited from them in the past.

When the Left lost the White House, Congress, and, for the most part, the Supreme Court, it began clamoring to change the system. For left-wing Democrats, that angst also translated into calls to bring in two new blue states, weaponize the FBI and the Justice Department, ally with social media to suppress the news, and spy on congressional representatives. All the socialists and communists did was up the ante in destroying norms by calling for the end of the presidency, the Senate, the border, the police, and the Pentagon.

By 2021, it was time to destroy the southern border and welcome in some 10 million illegal immigrants—without audits, English proficiency, health checks, or the ability to support themselves.

Had Kamala Harris been elected in 2024, we would have had another four years and another 5 million illegal aliens. And perhaps America would have gone from 50 million foreign-born residents to 60 million, or about 18% of the population.

In this regard, the Left sees California as our most liberal—and most ideal—state and perhaps concludes that the reason is that 28% of its resident population is now foreign-born, with the majority arriving with vast needs for health, education, housing, and food subsidies.

Today, 50% of all births in California are paid for by Medi-Cal, which serves 40% of the population. When second-generation immigrants are added to the foreign-born population, the two groups together comprise roughly 45% of California’s current population. This demographic transformation is one of the most profound in American history and came at a time when traditional civic education stressing assimilation, acculturation, integration, and knowledge of American traditions, history, and values was nearly nonexistent in California public schools.

So one way of achieving radical change was to alter the demography and welcome as many immigrants as possible who, in the first or second generation, might follow the examples of Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, or Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed.

They represent an entirely new sort of immigrant who arrives—or is born to immigrant parents—with both complaints against and dependence on their host country. They can see only the sins of America, never the catastrophes of their homeland that drove them or their parents here. This strange demand to change the rules whenever they do not bode well for angry and aggrieved parties permeates every possible manifestation of the Left but is especially egregious when demanded by immigrants who came originally as uninvited guests but almost immediately damned their magnanimous host.

It is strange for so many new immigrants to act on an elemental desire to reach America—only on arrival to profess that it is full of toxic, sinful people, living and dead. Yet the damned hosts have inexplicably welcomed total strangers like themselves, and have allowed them to share in the freedom, security, and prosperity created by the dead whom the newcomers nonetheless endlessly slander and smear.

If particular minorities statistically did not do as well on the SAT as Asians and whites did on average, the solution was certainly not SAT tutorials in the inner city or K-12 SAT outreach, demands for tougher classes in grammar, math, and analytics, or a return to the melting pot rather than the current salad-bowl tribalist model.

Instead, after the George Floyd riots, the call went out to abolish the SAT entirely—as if there had never been a purpose behind its creation. In fact, merit-based SAT exams were designed in the 1920s and 1930s to allow anyone, regardless of race, gender, region, or class, to enter college through meritorious performance on the tests—and, in particular, to overcome old-boy insider preferences and regional and ethnic prejudices.

Yet when the SAT was mostly abolished for four or five years, higher education thought it had solved the problem of minority underrepresentation.

In fact, its racialist war on standards only magnified its dilemmas. The SAT had once informed admissions officers not only about applicants’ qualifications but also whether admitted students could do the work once enrolled.

But soon liberal professors learned that many of the newly admitted cohorts lacked the K-12 training necessary to do customary university coursework. Yet if professors maintained their regular courses, requirements, and grading, they might soon be labeled racists once particular minorities were shown to do less well than Asians and whites.

So universities inflated grades. They introduced new remedial and gut courses. And they reduced the required coursework. But again, racialism is never a solution to problems. Instead, it is a catalyst that fuels them—as we have seen with the new notion that plagiarism is not an actionable offense when the culprit can plead victim status, whether a former president of Harvard or a current professor at Cambridge. But there are ancient laws and norms that insist intellectual theft is a crime and should be punished, not rewarded or ignored.

Soon employers noticed that the reading, writing, and analytical skills of graduates from prestigious schools were proving dismal. Alumni complained both that the reputations of their almae matres were in decline and resting on the fumes of the past and that their own children, who had prepared diligently to ensure suitably competitive grades and SAT scores for admission, were being rejected solely on the basis of their race.

The Left likewise pushed for lower physical standards for the military’s ground-combat brigades so that women, on average far less strong than their male counterparts, could join elite units. Again, the same ignorance and arrogance were evident. Physical standards were based on a century of combat experience in which morale, group discipline, and unit success rested on ensuring that all soldiers achieved a common level of physical strength and endurance.

This neo-Marxist-driven demand to mandate equality—albeit now substituting racial and gender consciousness for class consciousness—requires the destruction of established traditions, laws, and norms. The radical Left’s key agendas—defunding the police, destroying the border, granting mass amnesties to illegal aliens, subsidizing wind and solar energy while waging a war on fossil fuels, and expanding racial essentialism in hiring and admissions—have never won more than 30 to 40% support among the general public. Yet the solution was not to ask why, and then to reflect, reboot, and recalibrate in order to discover how the Left had lost public support.

Instead, the solution was to alter or destroy the system that had denied them power.

So communists, socialists, and radical Democrats prefer moving the goalposts. When equality of opportunity was largely achieved, next they demanded a mandated equality of outcome.

With the ascendancy of a large, affluent middle class, the Left, in its eternal search for a victimized class, pivoted and replaced class oppression with racial victimization.

And when there were not yet enough victimized minorities to guarantee a majority constituency of the aggrieved, the Left redefined the victimized to include anyone who was not a white heterosexual male, regardless of income and privilege.

And when the people finally tired of the Leftists’ totalitarian social engineering, the Left sought to change the system by radically altering the way Americans vote, the manner in which government is formed and functions, and, finally, the very demography of America.

The common denominator? Human nature revolts at forced statism, coercive redistribution, and government-mandated equality of results. It instead yearns for liberty and freedom.

No matter how much deception, camouflage, or brainwashing is employed, statism, socialism, and communism can never sustain public support. Throughout history, the Left has therefore begun by changing the rules and altering the demography—if not initially through changes to election rules, bureaucratic fiat, and biased court orders, then eventually through sheer violence.

(C)2026 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

The battle to end DEI in higher education is one that can only be won through attrition against a stubborn enemy that won’t back away from the ideology that created it.

One might think that the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Supreme Court decision that prohibited racial discrimination in college admissions would have put an end to the issue. It didn’t. At least some of America’s top schools unsurprisingly appear to be doing their best to dance around the courts and the law.

For those who’ve paid attention to how higher education has behaved in recent decades, it was clear that many schools would find ways to cheat the system. It’s all the rage these days for students and administrators, I guess.

That looks to be the case at Duke Law school. The Department of Justice recently accused the school of responding to the Supreme Court decision by creating a stealthier way to discriminate.

The Department of Justice said that following the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision “Duke Law emphasized racial diversity in admissions and engaged in a deliberate effort to preserve race-based outcomes for its incoming classes.”

The school highlighted “DEI” as one of the school’s “most important values” in late 2023 according to internal communications obtained by the DOJ and pledged to “work even harder” to admit “a racially diverse class.”

The DOJ memo said that following the Supreme Court decision, Duke Law revised its mission statement to include “equal justice, public service, and a ‘diversity of perspective and experience.’” The school then asked applicants to state how they would demonstrate commitment to those principles.

According to documents obtained by the DOJ, school admissions reviewers were told to tag this section and look for answers that captured “specific applicant characteristics that are commonly correlated with race.”

The result has been that black and Hispanic applicants have had a “substantially higher likelihood of admission to Duke Law than a white or Asian applicant with the same academic credentials.”

That means, the DOJ concluded that while admissions reviewers could say they haven’t seen demographics data, “Duke Law directed its admissions staff to highlight applicant information that could be used to advance Duke Law’s racial diversity goals.”

The result appears to show up in the numbers since there was a significant gap in LSAT numbers by race. That’s the standardized test students take before applying to law school.

“In 2024 and 2025, the median LSAT scores of rejected white and Asian applicants exceeded the median LSAT scores of admitted black applicants,” the memo said.

That’s hard to square if the school really wasn’t trying to at least somewhat select by race.

Duke responded to the accusations by saying that the school is following the law “in a manner that is consistent with our academic mission.”

The Justice Department remains unconvinced.

“Duke Law School doesn’t get a free pass to discriminate against white and Asian students simply because it thinks it has good intentions,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement. “Using ‘diversity’ essay questions to identify preferred races for admission is still illegal discrimination based on race, and this Department is committed to eliminating it everywhere we find it, including in our nation’s law schools.”

This is an important case and a good sign that the DOJ is serious about enforcing the Supreme Court decision.

America’s elite schools have demonstrated a fanatical devotion to racial discrimination in the name of DEI.

As we’ve seen time and again, American colleges and universities have responded to nearly every law and court decision demanding they stop with the DEI racism by coming up with clever ways to skirt the rules.

The University of California spent decades coming up with clever ways to discriminate following the passage of Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action. They pioneered a “holistic” application process to get closer to the racial composition they wanted. They allowed race-based scholarships conducted by private organizations. And they even dropped SAT and ACT standardized testing requirements.

But after further lawsuits and maybe a little bit of sobering up, those California schools backed away somewhat from the insanity. Even the standardized tests are starting to make a return.

The lesson being that the only way to cure wokeness and DEI, especially in higher education, is through intense, relentless pressure.

Ensuring a certain level of racial diversity regardless of student merit is practically a religious prerogative. They aren’t going to back away without a fight and they aren’t going to reform themselves.

Some may even wish to continue the fight against the Trump administration’s enforcement of the law no matter what.

In the Duke Chronicle, one student wrote a long diatribe about how the school should go on to the end and fight the DOJ on the lawsuit. He argued that the administration has a bad case because the numbers of black and Hispanic students are lower in percentage than the national population.

Of course, that glides over the central issue that schools are supposed to choose students based on merit rather than race.

Big bucks are at stake. Schools that decide to go to the mat for DEI face the threat of losing federal funding. Most aren’t willing to take that risk given how dependent they are.

But they will if they think they have friends in the White House who won’t keep them accountable. Don’t forget that.

Former President Barack Obama will likely campaign for Abdul El-Sayed, the far-left Democrat who just won Michigan’s U.S. Senate primary.

The two spoke after the primary, and El-Sayed publicly said he hopes Obama will campaign for him. Michigan could determine control of the Senate, and Obama remains the most popular Democrat.

El-Sayed won despite performing poorly among black primary voters. His coalition skewed younger, whiter, college-educated and progressive. In Detroit, Michigan’s largest majority-black city, El-Sayed’s opponent won more than 60% of the Democrat Senate vote. That may work in a Democrat primary. But will it work in November?

Enter Obama.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Obama visited a Kamala Harris campaign office in Pittsburgh and said he wanted to “speak some truths.” He complained that enthusiasm for Harris was weaker than when he ran and said the problem “seems to be more pronounced with the brothers.”

Obama said: “You’re coming up with all kinds of reasons and excuses. I’ve got a problem with that,” he said, suggesting some Black men “just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president.”

Apparently, some of “the brothers” remained unpersuaded. Pew Research Center’s validated-voter analysis later estimated that 21% of black men voted for Donald Trump. Nevertheless, Obama will probably go to Michigan and explain to black voters who rejected El-Sayed in the primary why they should vote for him in November. After all, Obama and El-Sayed are closely aligned on policy.

Take health care. El-Sayed supports “Medicare for All.” Obama repeatedly said the ideal healthcare plan would be single-payer. “If I were starting a system from scratch,” Obama said in 2009, “then I think that the idea of moving towards a single-payer system could very well make sense.” Near the end of his second term, Obama said, “If I was starting from scratch, I probably would have supported a single-payer system.”

Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called it a goal. Asked in 2013 whether Obamacare was ultimately a step toward single-payer health care, Reid answered, “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

Like Obama, El-Sayed chastises “the rich” for “not paying their fair share in taxes.” Like Obama, who said racism is part of the America’s “DNA,” El-Sayed believes racism remains a serious problem.

How far from Obama are these “far-left” Democrats? Last year, Obama called democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani during his campaign for New York City mayor, praised his campaign and reportedly offered to serve as a “sounding board.”

On Israel, there isn’t much daylight between the two. El-Sayed has called the Israeli government “evil,” “bloodthirsty” and a “rogue state.” He declined to directly answer when asked, “Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?” Obama never went that far. He repeatedly defended Israel’s legitimacy and security.

But Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly clashed. Netanyahu fiercely opposed Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, warning that Tehran could not be trusted. Israel obtained an archive of Iranian nuclear documents that Netanyahu said proved Iran was lying about its nuclear-weapons activities and was not abiding by the terms of the deal.

The Obama-Netanyahu relationship became so poisonous that a senior Obama administration official reportedly called Netanyahu “chickens—-.” The White House distanced itself from the insult, but the hostility between the two leaders was no secret.

What explains El-Sayed’s weakness among black primary voters? In 2020, he explicitly said, “I believe we need to defund the police.” Polls show blacks want the level of policing in their community to remain the same, if not increased. Blacks are disproportionately victims of crime. Tupac Shakur said: “The same crime element that white people are scared of black people are scared of … Just because we black, we get along with the killers? What is that? We need protection, too.”

El-Sayed wants to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, despite studies showing a connection between unskilled illegal aliens and lower wages and greater unemployment among black workers in the same skill group.

This brings us back to Obama. El-Sayed needs black voters who did not particularly want him. Democrats need Michigan to gain control of the senate.

So, expect the former president to show up. And when he does, Obama will give “the brothers” a message. You may not have wanted this candidate. His positions may be against your self-interests.

But vote for him anyway.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.