The Democratic Party today is much different than in the past

July 15, 2025

Those who are old enough to remember the 1970s and 1980s no doubt realize that today’s Democratic Party has only one thing in common with the Party of those days. That one thing is its name.

The way Democrats thought and functioned back then was much different, and much better. Democrats did have their own ideas about things, but they were not nearly so different from Republicans. Both parties generally held “American” ideals, but had some differences in how they should be sustained.

There was a much broader acceptance of values such as faith, individual rights and freedom, and a smaller, less intrusive government. There wasn’t the heavy focus on ideological issues and how we should view the way our country is being operated. That was due to the fact that the two parties were very close in their idea of what America was and should be. 

If people had different ideas, they weren’t attacked for them, and no set of ideas carried with it a strong effort to “encourage” those with different ideas to accept them.

Today, there is a vast gulf between the ideas of Republicans and Democrats. Even the way each group is referred to is different. Democrats are often referred to as liberals, progressives or socialists. Republicans are often referred to conservatives, MAGA radicals, or Nazis, and such.

But when you look at the fundamentals of each party, the Republicans are the ones whose ideas are by far most like the original founding principles.

Many Democrats support our previously open border, and defend and protect the illegal aliens who entered the country the wrong way. Republicans, however, are working hard to remove these illegals, many of whom are killers, drug or child traffickers, rapists, terrorists and others of ill will.

It is those on the left who deliberately interfere with ICE and CBP agents trying to do their job to protect the people. They attack the agents, throw rocks at them in their vehicles, identify them and threaten them and their families.

President Donald Trump is under heavy leftist criticism for his actions, such as executive orders, deporting illegals, military actions without prior Congressional approval, et al. But those critics on the left either don’t know history, or don’t care, as long as they can use falsehoods to make Trump look bad. The truth is that other presidents — Barack Obama, notably — have done these same things, and been praised for it.

People representing the liberal left in government are pushing further left than ever before, even getting others on the left to criticize them.

A poll in May and June conducted by Unite the Country, a Democrat super PAC, showed that voters perceived the party as “out of touch,” “woke” and “weak.”

This is reflected in persons in positions of prominence on the political left.

The newly elected Democrat nominee for mayor of New York City, “proud socialist” Zohran Mamdani, has been characterized as a communist for his extreme views, past and present.

His anti-America positions include setting up city-run grocery stores, massive tax increases on the wealthy, engaging in anti-police rhetoric and railing against Israel in refusing to denounce the phrase “Globalize the intifada.” 

California Governor Gavin Newsome has essentially ruined his state by imposing foolish leftist policies that have driven businesses and residents out of the state.

A while back, now-Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson got a great deal of attention in her confirmation hearing. When asked to define a “woman,” Jackson responded that she couldn't provide a definition, citing her non-biologist background.

In the vote for her confirmation, some Republicans cited that she dodged the question on whether she favors court packing, has a soft-on-crime sentencing record, and danced around explaining her judicial philosophy.

As a practicing Justice, she has come under criticism from some of her court peers for her apparent lack of understanding of how things work.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a judicial conservative, commented on a dissent she had made. Barrett wrote that Jackson's opinion "is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself." "We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

And Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of Jackson’s liberal judicial colleagues, noted that the points she made in a dissent addressed a topic which was not before the court.

Democrats and other leftists demonstrate daily that the direction of their ideas and policies is clearly at odds with the established values of the Founders of the United States of America. They don’t want to make the United States better, they want to fundamentally transform the country.

A good explanation of what the liberal-left is working for comes to us from the great Thomas Sowell, who said: “At the heart of the liberal-left vision is the idea that the self-anointed saviors should be telling the rest of us, through the power of government, what we ought to do, what we can do and what we cannot do. They will define for us what is good and what is bad, remaking us in their image.”

This is not what our Founders envisioned, and not what is good for America.

Trump’s efforts to downsize government has Democrats going crazy

March 4, 2025

The left’s attitude toward President Donald Trump is — unsurprisingly — unchanged since he won reelection last November. In fact, a recent Pew Research Center poll shows Democrats dislike everything Trump does. Imagine that! 

It seems that anything that can be said regarding Trump to make him or his actions look bad is approved and encouraged.

Here is one example: “President Donald Trump announced late Sunday that he was naming former Fox News personality Dan Bongino as deputy FBI director, the latest in a series of controversial picks for high-profile law enforcement positions,” as reported by Politico. And, another source referred to Bongino merely as a podcaster.

However, these sources of important information that people depend upon neglected to tell the public that Bongino had served 4 years as a New York police officer and 11 years as a U.S. Secret Service agent during the tenure of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He has much more substantive law enforcement credentials than a Fox News personality or a podcaster. 

This is a good example how the left “sort of” reports things, using negative and/or derogatory information while leaving out relevant information in reporting on the Trump administration, its personnel, and its actions.

And it’s not just the news media that are indulging in this behavior.

The left likes to think of itself as open-minded, inclusive, tolerant and peace-loving. However, the extreme portion of the left pursues hatred and intolerance as normal elements in its dealings with, and references to Trump supporters and Trump administration officials. And since voters voted against the radical left last November, this behavior is becoming more mainstream.

Down in Louisiana an LSU law professor criticized both Trump and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry using vulgar language in class. A few days later, in response to student complaints, the professor was suspended by LSU pending an investigation into the complaints.

At a recent meeting of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, Florida Democrat Rep. Maxwell Frost called President Trump “the grifter in chief,” and referred to Elon Musk as “President Musk.” 

At a town hall held by a Republican Congressman near Atlanta, Georgia recently, he was repeatedly interrupted with shouts and jeers. A similar result was found in a town hall in La Grande, Ore., where the audience booed and yelled. A Wisconsin Republican Congressman was booed after saying that Trump has done “some very good things.” 

In response to the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), one person said, “this is all a horror show,” and another person said that “Democrats should treat this as a war.” And California Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters screamed, “We have got to tell Elon Musk that nobody elected your [expletive deleted].”

Continuing her rant, Waters added, “We’re in a crisis in this country because Trump and Elon Musk and the billionaires have decided they’re going to put us all in our place. They’re going to run this country. They’re going to make sure that they take over everything.”

"This is what the start of dictatorship looks like," Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar said. "When you gut the U.S. Constitution and you install yourself as the sole power, that is how dictators are made."

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is trying to protect illegal aliens from being deported. This is a high priority for the Trump administration, especially for the violent criminals among the millions of illegals. “Believe it or not, in America EVERYONE has rights,” AOC wrote. “Citizen or not, we all should know our rights to protect ourselves and others from illegal search & seizure.” Even she ought to understand that the one right they do not have is to be here illegally.

Whether these Democrats actually do not know what they are talking about, or are deliberately distorting the truth for political gain, is an open question. Nothing seems to be more important to them than damaging Trump and his policies, the things that tens of millions of Americans support. Trump collected 77 million votes and 312 Electoral votes, when only 270 are required to be elected.

Doesn’t it seem odd that the Democrats who constantly complain about how “our democracy” is being treated, loudly demonstrate how little they understand about how “our democracy” — our constitutional republic — is supposed to work?

It seems to puzzle them, and in fact, set off their alarms, that by the U.S. Constitution the President of the United States of America, who was elected by a majority of the voters in the nation, controls the Administrative Branch. All of the people in the Administrative Branch work for the President, and they do not require Congressional approval or any approval outside that of the President.

A new Gallup poll shows that Democrats want their party to moderate their positions. And for the good of the people that those in Congress are elected to serve, this is a sensible idea.

The problem is that by moderating their talk and behavior they must abandon their political goals, which are more important to them than restoring and maintaining the nation as created by the Founders.

That is what Trump, Musk and the rest of the administration is working toward.

Are they defending democracy? Or, eliminating democratic principles?

October 8, 2024

Many of those on the left have been observed using the term “democracy” when talking about the United States of America. And some activities, and some individuals are often termed “threats to our democracy.”

Of course, our nation does operate on democratic principles. Our Founding Fathers came here from other countries, and were familiar with how things were done in other countries. Some countries may have been democracies while others may not have been. They developed our system to avoid the problems they witnessed in other countries. 

The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution — the Bill of Rights — exist for that very purpose. And, notably, the first of those amendments is the one guaranteeing us freedom of speech and other things. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Despite this very clear statement, from day one of our republic there have been efforts to limit free speech, and many of those actions were exercised by those in the federal government.

And that effort continues today, as those who are objective and have been paying attention have witnessed. During COVID, and on controversial subjects, speech is frequently limited by the news media and social media, and yet again, by some of those working in and for our government.

When you are trying to control a nation, people being able to say whatever they are thinking is not a good thing. Some ideas that do not agree with the status quo are out there for the public to consider. And the controllers cannot prosper under those conditions.

To combat these alternative ideas, they are labeled as false, misleading, disinformation, misinformation, etc., and are removed, or requested to be removed, from communication vehicles and thrown into the trashcan.

Last month John Kerry, former Secretary of State and former Special Presidential Envoy for Climate in the Biden administration, took part in a World Economic Forum panel discussion on Green Energy. Near the end of the event an audience member asked what could be done about the disinformation being heard surrounding the climate change fracas.

"You know there's a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, etc.,” Kerry said. “But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence,” he continued.  

“So, what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you're free to be able to implement change."

"The dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing. It is part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue. It's really hard to govern today. The referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn't a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree. And people go and self-select where they go for their news, for their information. And then you get into a vicious cycle," Kerry said.

In another comment, Kerry remarked, "Democracies around the world now are struggling with the absence of a sort of truth arbiter, and there’s no one who defines what facts really are."

So, our First Amendment gets in the way of people like Kerry being able to easily shove their ideas down our throats with no opposition. It is a major block to combating other ideas, which they label as “misinformation.”

They want the government to be the “truth arbiter” and define what the facts are. And they need the Democrats/socialists to win the presidency and both houses of Congress so that they will have the power to rid the nation of the First Amendment that allows challenges to their chosen course of action.

The reason for this is that Kerry and his comrades believe they know all that is needed, and that climate change is going to end humanity and all plant and animal life on Earth. And they know exactly what is needed to prevent that. 

Other opinions — even those of scientists or science professors — are “disinformation,” and must be prevented from becoming public knowledge.

However, it ought to be obvious to any thinking individual that what Kerry and others are trying to do is precisely why there is a First Amendment, and why that amendment is the very first one in our guaranteed Bill of Rights. 

Without free speech government can do whatever it pleases, and anyone expressing a contrary opinion is subject to criminal charges, even death.

The Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution are designed to limit what the government can do, so that the United States of America will not become just one more oppressive totalitarian state.

Democrats struggle to establish an effective campaign theme

August 27, 2024

After replacing President Joe Biden as the front-runner for the Democrat nomination for president in a curiously undemocratic way, Vice President Kamala Harris has spent the last month avoiding the press, giving no interviews, holding no press conferences, and did not even post her agenda on the campaign website.

A little over a week ago, however, her campaign did publish several proposals to “lower costs for American families.” Prior to that, she had also not introduced any initiatives, or defended current Biden administration initiatives.

These proposals include: a call for a federal law against price-gouging; more government control over prescription drug prices; extending financial assistance to people shopping for health insurance; subsidizing the construction and purchase of housing; reinstating a COVID-era cash stipend for families with children.

These will increase federal spending over the next 10 years by an estimated $2 trillion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Also, Harris plans to pay for this government over-reach with a hike in corporate taxes to 28 percent, which would cover only about half the spending. It will also have a negative effect on businesses, increasing their costs, leading to higher prices to make up for the additional taxes paid.

Taking another shot at business, Harris has accused food companies of “price gouging,” saying that price controls are needed to bring down prices and check corporate greed. She, of course, knows full well that the wonderful creation of her and Joe’s administration — Bidenomics — is responsible for the higher prices on food and virtually everything else people need and want.

Bidenomics-caused inflation has kicked up costs generally by around 19 percent, and food prices are up even more, about 21 percent.

For their part, those in the food industry use logic to explain the high prices. With higher prices for labor and raw materials, higher prices on their products are the result, and significant profit margins are needed to finance new product development. Only common sense here.

Even The Washington Post editorial board criticized Harris' proposed method in an opinion piece before the convention. The board called it a "populist gimmick," saying that the nation is in need of "serious economic ideas." 

Other elements of misplaced blame were present in last week’s Democratic National Convention. Speakers at the event repeatedly falsely blamed former President and Republican candidate Donald Trump for several things. One of those is the previously mentioned cause of rising prices.

Both President Joe Biden and VP candidate Tim Walz accused Trump of planning a nationwide ban on abortion. Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, warned that Trump would ban in vitro fertilization. “Trump’s anti-woman crusade has put other Americans’ right to have their own families at risk, because if they win, Republicans will not stop at banning abortion. They will come for IVF next.”

An informed person would know that Trump has suggested he might support a ban after 15 or 16 weeks, and more recently that abortion should be left up to the states. And in February expressed his support for IVF.

As reported by The Daily Caller, “Many speakers condemned Project 2025, an initiative led by The Heritage Foundation in partnership with over 100 other conservative organizations. The project, a policy blueprint for a future conservative presidential administration, offered to work with any political campaign open to supporting those policies. Heritage and its allies launched the project in April 2023, before Trump had won the Republican nomination. And while many Project 2025 staff had worked in Trump’s administration, the project did not consult with Trump or any other Republican candidate in drafting the document.

“Even so, Democrats repeatedly introduced Project 2025 at the convention as ‘Trump’s plan.’

“Michigan state Democrat Sen. Mallory McMorrow presented Project 2025 as ‘the Republican blueprint for a second Trump term.’ She went on to claim that Project 2025 aims ‘to turn Donald Trump into a dictator.’”

However, Project 2025 has not been adopted either by Trump or the Republican Party.

They also continued spouting the fairy tale that Trump and Republicans ban books. “Shutting down the Department of Education, banning our books — none of that will prepare our kids for the future,” former first lady Michelle Obama screamed on Tuesday.

However, removing books that are inappropriate for young children from their school libraries is not banning books. Even Obama and other Democrats should be capable of understanding that very significant difference. 

With two weak candidates, Harris and Walz, on the ticket, the Democrats have a steep mountain to climb. Both through the years have demonstrated an affection for criminals, illegal aliens, rioters, government control, gun control, and other things more associated with socialism and Marxism.

Perhaps they understand that enormous challenge, and are neck deep in desperation. Thus, exaggeration, lying and creating falsities has taken control of the Democrat campaign.

The Democrats accuse Trump of “going backwards.” However, by moving back to what Trump did, we actually are moving the country forward, away from the catastrophe this Democrat administration created that actually did move us backward.

America would be so much better off if a few thousand DC Democrats loved their country like Harry Truman did, instead of trying to change it.

Democrats determined to make government work better. For them.

This may be the first time in American history where so many long-standing elements of our government were targeted for change. Such important things as increasing the number of Supreme Court justices; imposing term limits on justices; getting rid of the Senate filibuster procedure; imposing more gun control constraints; and statehood for the District of Columbia and the territory of Puerto Rico are on the plate.

Critics of these changes cite political advantage as the motivation. Four more justices appointed by the current Democrat president and approved by a Democrat-controlled Senate certainly fits that idea. Two U.S. Senators each and some number of Representatives for DC and Puerto Rico also fit in. 

And doing away with the filibuster, so the Senate would make all decisions at 51 percent like the House of Representatives, would make appointment approvals easier for both parties, and would remove protection against the tyranny of the majority. Democrats, incidentally, made good use of the filibuster during the Trump presidency.

The bill to make D.C. a state was passed by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform last Wednesday, and will get a vote by the full House this week. 

One reason cited for this historic transformation of the nation’s capitol is to provide the taxpayers of the District of Columbia with voting representation in the Congress and full control over local affairs.

However, it is important to know just why the nation’s capitol was not a state to begin with, and that goes back to the establishment of the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in June of 1788.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States."

Founding Father James Madison, the nation’s fourth president, was concerned that if the capital doubled as a state, it would have greater power than the other states, creating an unequal situation, and he correctly believed that the federal government should be neutral in matters of the sovereign states.

An additional and more recent opinion about the nation’s capitol remaining an independent entity that is not associated with any state comes from Robert F. Kennedy when he was Attorney General in the 1960s. “It was indispensably necessary to the independence and the very existence of the new Federal Government to have a seat of government which was not subject to the jurisdiction or control of any State,” Kennedy wrote.

And regarding the perceived systemic inequality that has denied the full voting rights, citizenship and representation in Congress for residents of Washington DC, which some cite as justification for statehood, no one forces people to live in the District instead of a nearby state, where they would have voting rights and be only a short distance from the District. 

Further, DC statehood will definitely benefit Democrats. According to bestplaces.net, which got the following voter data from federal agencies, related that in the last five presidential elections, DC voters were heavily Democrat. And in 2016, DC voters voted Democrat 90.86 percent, against the 4.09 percent who voted Republican.

Virginia’s 9th District Republican Congressman Morgan Griffith addressed this situation in a recent correspondence to constituents. “Any measure giving the District statehood would need to go through the process of amending the Constitution. H.R. 51, the statehood bill the House will consider, does not do so. Instead, it shrinks the seat of the U.S. government to an area around the Mall, the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and other federal buildings, and admits the rest of the District as a state.”

“This approach suffers from an additional flaw beyond its constitutionality,” he continues. “The 23rd Amendment grants electoral votes to the ‘seat of Government of the United States,’ not the District of Columbia specifically, meaning that the handful of residents in this area, presumably including the president and his family, would have as much weight in the Electoral College as some states.”

“Giving the residents of the District of Columbia a voice in the Federal Government is a worthy goal,” he wrote, “but it must be done constitutionally.”

Offering a fair and sensible measure to satisfy this issue, Griffith has introduced H.R. 2614, the Compact Federal District Act. The bill recognizes the right of D.C. residents to be represented in Congress, and be able to vote for a U.S. House Representative and two Senators by transferring most of the District and its residents to Maryland in a process known as retrocession, which means returning the land to Maryland that it ceded to the federal government to form the District of Columbia. 

The proposed actions listed at the beginning of this commentary share a political desire, with the possible exception of term limits for Supreme Court justices. That desire is giving a clear and great advantage to one political party: The Democrats.

Apparently, they like this method of gaining power. If you cannot achieve your goals under the existing system, change it to meet your needs.

Radical ideas by Virginia Democrats will hurt the state

From before there was a United States of America, there were future Americans in what is now the Commonwealth of Virginia. The first English settlement in North America occurred in what is now Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. 

One of the original colonies, Virginia played an important role in the American Revolution of 1775-83, and was home to numerous now-famous persons from history, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and others. 

These men were instrumental in crafting a governmental structure second to none, based upon democratic principles. But it was not, and is not, a pure democracy; it is a democratic republic. 

The United States Constitution was ratified in 1788, and it put that system of government into effect. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, which forbid federal restriction of personal freedoms and guaranteed a range of legal protections, was adopted in 1791. 

The greatest threat in the 200-plus years the United States has existed is a rise of leftist idealism that today threatens the continued existence of America as we know it. 

If this trend continues, it is only a matter of time before our history and our traditions will be erased, and the country will have adopted socialistic concepts like those radical ideas championed by the current cast of Democrat hopefuls seeking the party nomination for president. 

California has long been a cauldron of crazy ideas and failed policies, generally leading the way toward societal collapse. But now we find a state that was one of the leaders in formation of the United States of America behaving like California, and Virginia is its name.

With a Democrat governor and Democrat-controlled General Assembly for the first time in more than 20 years, several radical ideas have been proposed in Virginia. Gov. Ralph Northam and legislative leaders recently announced an 11-point ‘Virginia 2020 Plan.’ Among those 11 points are:

* Restore women’s reproductive rights.

* Raise the minimum wage.  

* Advance common-sense gun safety measures.

* Fight climate change, protect natural resources.

It all sounds so harmless, so good. But these four points from the list have great potential for very negative consequences:

* Women’s reproductive rights - removes the ultrasound and 24-hour waiting period requirement, as well as a requirement that abortion clinics meet the same standards as hospitals. 

It also loosens several restrictions on third-trimester abortions, including a requirement that three doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would likely cause the patient’s death or “substantially and irremediably impair” their mental or physical health, expanding abortion rights during the last three months of pregnancy. Preventing pregnancy is both easier and better than ending pregnancy.

* Raise the minimum wage - enacting a $15 minimum wage will drive up unemployment, and place a hardship on small businesses. When California increased the minimum to $15, a Moody’s economist calculated that as many as 160,000 jobs would be lost, and that was just in the manufacturing sector. With the advances in technology, a higher minimum wage speeds up ending job possibilities for young people and others with limited skills.

* Gun safety measures - very aggressive anti-gun laws, including a “Red Flag law” that would allow weapons to be temporarily confiscated from legal owners, merely on the say-so of another individual that the person constitutes a danger to himself or others, all without due process. It impinges on law abiding Virginians’ Second Amendment rights.

* Climate change - Northam signed an executive order last September calling for the state to use 30 percent renewable power by 2030 and to be 100 percent carbon-free by 2050. In 2018, about 64 percent of electricity generation was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases). About 19 percent was from nuclear energy, and only about 17 percent was from renewable energy sources like wind and solar. 

Like the Green New Deal, the Virginia plan promises more than can be, or should be delivered, and is an attack on the local economies that still depend on jobs and revenue from fossil fuels. Renewable energy sources may someday replace other sources through natural processes, but shoving them down the throats of Virginians through government edict is neither smart nor necessary.

In addition to these goals, others liberal ideas also promise negative results:

* repealing the Right to Work law - this likely will have a negative impact on job growth. This law ensures that nobody will be denied a job because of that person’s decision to join or not join a union, and joining a union will be a choice, not a must.

* abolishing the death penalty in favor of life without parole - this action leads many states to also eventually abolish life sentences, meaning violent criminals could be released into society after serving their time. Some crimes deserve the death of the perpetrator. Leave the death penalty alone.

These measures turn Virginia away from the American design, which isn’t perfect, but is better than any other design. Who would ever have thought that a state so deeply imbedded in the nation’s founding would become one that would lead its downfall?