“Americans have no culture,” decry the progressives, the activists, the woke leftists, smug Europeans, and the most spoiled individuals alive today.
This is the latest sentiment from our culture-deniers. They excuse their hatred, disdain, and active dismembering of our nation by claiming we’re on stolen land with nothing of our own worth defending. They are dead wrong.
To understand American culture, one first has to understand how it took root — and why it could only have happened here. In 1776, with the help of God, the Bible, an esteemed moral compass, a fiery yearning for freedom, and the long memory of what tyranny looks like, our Founders granted independence to the United States of America.
They did something no people in history had ever done: they created a nation not by inheritance or conquest, but by deliberate choice and reflection. As John Adams wrote in 1776, Americans were among “the first people whom heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon, and choosing the forms of government under which they should live.” George Washington called the republican model “an experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” Benjamin Franklin, stepping out of the Constitutional Convention, famously answered a woman asking what had been produced: “A republic, madam — if you can keep it.”
America became the first modern republic explicitly grounded in natural rights, limited government, and biblical morality. This was rare. Unique. A risk. And it paid off spectacularly.
While Europe was dominated by monarchies and the Old World was bound by inherited hierarchy and colonial absolutism, people in the West were sitting down to create a creed-based nation. Soon, anyone could become an American by embracing the ideas of 1776, rejecting Old World hierarchies, and building a culture of opportunity, personal responsibility, and generosity.
Today, America remains the greatest country in the world — the freest, most prosperous, most decent, and most opportunity-rich society on earth — where individuals of any background can still become the architect of their own destiny through hard work, faith, and the unalienable rights endowed by their Creator. The United States still produces over a <a href="https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/usa/gdp_share/">quarter</a> of the entire world’s wealth with just 4% of its population. Freedom of speech and religion remain sacred — <a href="https://themercury.com/ap/americans-love-free-speech-until-someone-uses-it/article_92c8b016-73bb-4a41-816b-b6ad17c276fd.html">81</a>% of Americans say speech should be protected “at all costs.” Our military remains the most powerful force for good in history, deterring tyrants and keeping the global order stable so freedom can flourish. She leads the planet in innovation, patents, and Nobel prizes, and offers the ordinary person the highest standard of living anywhere in the world.
Her success proves the Founders’ creed-based experiment in self-government under God continues to deliver more liberty and human flourishing than any other nation in history. 
America was, and remains, the rarest and most exceptional thing in political history.
The United States is where people come to live a better life. That is why non-Americans are clamoring to get inside the minute they get the chance. But according to many on the Left (and some on the Right), America doesn’t have a culture. I beg to differ.
To me, American culture is playing in the yard with neighbors, running home when Mom calls you for dinner, saying prayers before a meal and before bed, church on Sunday, working hard and playing harder, football, freedom, hot dogs, friends, family, traveling, sharing laughter, and being able to do and say whatever the hell you want. If our culture had a theme song, Rascal Flatts’ “Fast Cars and Freedom” would play well.
But that is what is so incredible about this nation: American culture can look different to everyone. For some, it means never settling down, hitchhiking across all 50 states, starting a travel business, making millions, and donating a portion to the charity of your choice. For others, it means falling in love with whoever you want, raising a family, choosing how and where they grow up, living on a small plot of land, going to work, and tending a garden. It can mean choosing burgers, pasta, tacos, or sushi for dinner. It can mean flying to space with your fellow astronauts and reaching farther than any human being has ever gone before. It can mean choosing to serve your country at age 17, fighting our enemies abroad, and defending our sacred freedoms at home. It can mean losing everything and starting from scratch after hitting rock bottom. It&#8217;s Girl Scout cookies, space expeditions, bloody hockey champions wearing the American flag — it&#8217;s being immensely proud of our nation, despite its flaws. American culture is perfect and imperfect. It&#8217;s customizable to oneself.
John Adams wrote that he had to study politics and war so that his children could study mathematics and philosophy, so that their children could study painting and poetry. That inheritance is ours. We are the generation he was writing for, and we are lucky enough to live inside the culture he made possible.
Yet universally, it is a culture that protects natural rights, rewards merit and hard work through the freest markets on earth, and safeguards the freedoms of speech and religion that no other society has ever guaranteed at this scale. It would behoove us to remember what our martyred American champion Charlie Kirk said about this culture — the culture of the American settler: faith-driven, family-centered, entrepreneurial, and generous, born from people who fled oppression to build something better under God. It is a culture of opportunity and virtue. And this has cultivated the most innovative, charitable, and upwardly mobile society ever known, where immigrants still pour in because nowhere else lets the ordinary man rise so far on talent and effort alone.
So when you ask, “What is American culture?” Put simply, it is living proof that the rarest political experiment in history actually worked.
My culture cultivates greatness. To be American is to know that, feel it in your bones, and wake up every day grateful for it.
As I write this from my deck — sun on my face, country music in my ears, the Capitol standing tall before me — I am reminded that none of this was an accident. It was built, fought for, and paid for in blood and belief by people who had every reason to quit but didn’t. That legacy landed in our hands. What we do with it is on us. 
The next time someone tells you America has no culture, no soul, nothing worth saving — look around. Really look. This country gave ordinary people an extraordinary life. It still does. It will keep doing it as long as we have the spine to stand up and say so.
I do. I will. And if you don’t — there’s a plane leaving tonight.

Patriotism

America Has A Culture — And It Is Worth Defending

America First

Founding Fathers

Freedom

America’s favorite socialist import, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, just dropped his Preliminary Citywide Racial Equity <a href="https://www.nyc.gov/assets/equity/downloads/pdf/FINAL_PUBLISH_Preliminary%20REP_4%206%2026.pdf">Plan</a> and unsurprisingly surmised that white New Yorkers are too wealthy.
According to his new report, a 375 page bureaucratic word salad spread across 45 city agencies, the median net worth of a white household in NYC is roughly $277,000. For black households it’s about $19,000, a nearly 15-fold difference. Mamdani’s solution to this abhorrent problem, is a “whole-of-government” race-based overhaul that explicitly prioritizes “black and brown New Yorkers” who’ve supposedly been “pushed out” for decades.
This is an odd way of saying black and brown people are going to be given special treatment over their white counterparts.
The plan is textbook grievance politics dressed up as compassion. It lays out hundreds of goals, more than 800 strategies, and over 600 indicators across all 45 city agencies, to try and put down the white folk. From housing and health to pothole filling, these agencies must view their work through a “racial equity lens.” In other words, resources, jobs, and contracts will be doled out based on skin color, not merit, need, or behavior. This will coincide with anti-racism training for city workers, pay equity mandates by race, and new “True Cost of Living” measures — all absolutely necessary to ensure a nation&#8217;s success, right?
It won’t be cheap. The Mayor’s Office of Equity and Racial Justice and the Commission on Racial Equity (a mouthful) is already budgeted at $10.2 million per year, which is a 42% jump from last year. Meanwhile, New York City is staring at a $5.4 – $7.1 billion <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/04/07/opinion/mamdanis-cost-of-living-crisis-is-simply-a-cover-for-government-excess/">budget</a> shortfall. But sure, let’s keep pouring money into this black hole of DEI bureaucracy. 
Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, immediately said she would look into the proposal, and reminded Americans that there’s no such thing as “reverse discrimination” — it’s just plain old discrimination, and it’s illegal.
The real driver of these gaps isn&#8217;t some ancient conspiracy keeping black and brown New Yorkers down. It&#8217;s the policy machine the city built over decades. Benefit structures that penalized marriage and work over dependency didn&#8217;t close wealth gaps — they entrenched them, weakening family formation in the communities they claimed to help. Meanwhile, high <a href="https://www.ibo.nyc.gov/assets/ibo/downloads/pdf/taxes-and-other-revenues/2026/2023-pit-data.xlsx">taxes</a>, <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=225585">crime</a>, failing schools, and endless red tape pushed productive families out. Mamdani&#8217;s plan doesn&#8217;t reckon with any of that. It just adds a racial lens to the same failed apparatus.
This is the horseshoe theory in action. Marxist “equity” meets identity politics and ends up in the same place, punishing success to buy votes. The <a href="https://reason.com/2023/06/29/supreme-court-on-affirmative-action-eliminating-racial-discrimination-means-eliminating-all-of-it/#:~:text=In%20a%206%E2%80%933%20decision%2C%20the%20Supreme%20Court,racial%20discrimination%20in%20the%20college%20admissions%20process.">Supreme Cour</a>t already gutted race-based preferences, correctly identifying that explicit discrimination by race violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Mamdani knows this, he just hopes Trump’s DOJ is too busy to sue.
New Yorkers deserve color-blind policy, not skin-color equity delivered by a Champagne socialist. Prioritizing one race over another doesn’t close “inequity” gaps, it widens resentment and accelerates the exodus of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Mo3-peFUzzA#:~:text='Varney%20&amp;%20Co.'%20host%20Stuart%20Varney%20warns,and%20residents%20out%20of%20New%20York%20as">taxpayers</a> who actually fund the whole circus. When the bill finally comes due — because it always does — by way of higher taxes, worse services, and more crime, the same “disproportionately affected” communities will be the hardest hit.
Mamdani ran on affordability. Now he’s pivoting to race essentialism because actual solutions such as school choice, cutting regulations, enforcing the law, and promoting two parent families are politically inconvenient for a Democratic Socialists of America mayor. It’s easier to blame “whiteness” than failed ideology.
They call this “racial equity.” I don’t think so. Because once government starts picking winners and losers by race, you don’t get justice. You get Martin Luther King, Jr. rolling in his grave. You get South Africa with better bagels. And you get a whole bunch of angry, poor, and divided New Yorkers.

NYC Mayor Mamdani Makes A Housing-Related Announcement

Mamdani’s Newest Policy Plan Is Just Straight-up Racism Against White People

Anti-Racism

Democratic Socialism

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

New York City

Zohran Mamdani

When Donald Trump first ran for president, many of us on the Right reveled in the thrill of the brazen businessman swinging a chainsaw at the bureaucratic beast that had spent years grinding down conservatives, families, and young men.
In the years that followed, we often felt vindicated. The Left had lied for years. Institutions failed us. COVID “experts” betrayed the public, Russiagate was a horrific hoax, and 2020’s summer of riots confirmed that rules only applied to the non-woke. Distrust was earned.
But recently, young conservatives — especially men — have traded righteous anger at the Left for a toxic victimhood that mirrors everything we once fought against. They parrot conspiracies and insist that everything — America, young men, the world — is doomed and the cards are stacked against them, no matter what.
This isn’t anti-establishment courage. It’s the same grievance politics the Left perfected, now wearing a red hat. As Daily Wire editor emeritus Ben Shapiro warned during his recent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ben-shapiro-talks-truth-problem-solving-and-true-conservatism-on-uncommon-knowledge?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Drew+Berkemeyer&amp;category=Analysis&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=Ben+Shapiro+Talks+Truth%2C+Problem-Solving%2C+And+True+Conservatism+On+%E2%80%98Uncommon+Knowledge%E2%80%99">appearance</a> on the Hoover Institution’s “Uncommon Knowledge” podcast, this internal rot — conspiracy culture, corrosive cynicism, and a Marxist-style obsession with exploding “the system” instead of fixing our own lives — is how conservatism loses its soul.
Shapiro warns that the Right’s biggest threat isn’t the Left anymore. It’s us falling into the same victimhood trap.
“You don’t want to solve your problems,” he told host Peter Robinson, “because you say, they’re not my problems, they’re society’s problems and I can’t solve those problems unless society is exploded. It’s almost a Marxist vision of history.”
This turns the Right away from traditional American ideals of individual agency and toward emotional, anti-institutional rage. I see this with my friends: it’s hurting relationships, crushing success, and handicapping personal ambition.
Young men specifically are suffering, and the Left bears real blame. Male <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/data.html#:~:text=6.5-,Download%20Data%20(CSV),data%20for%20the%20chart%20figure.">suicide</a> rates remain four times higher than women’s. For men ages 15-24, rates jumped 26% between 2010 and 2023. Millions of young men are falling behind in education, struggling to launch careers, and checking out of relationships. The Left’s oppressor-oppressed matrix, its war on masculinity, its celebration of broken families, and its assault on merit have left a generation of boys, and more and more females, feeling like the villain in their own country. That pain is legitimate.
But wallowing in it, embracing black-and-white “they all lie” thinking, and letting resentment replace agency, is surrender. 
Shapiro calls this “depixelation” — the collapse of nuance after three trust-shattering blows happened near-simultaneously: the media’s Russiagate lies, COVID’s contradictory mandates, and the Black Lives Matter double standard that let cities burn while the rest of us were locked down. Suddenly, everything became binary. No evidence needed; just rage. That’s dangerous.
Shapiro illustrates this perfectly using an episode of  Joe Rogan’s podcast. In it, Michael Shellenberger debunked Jeffrey Epstein blackmail claims against Trump. Rogan’s response? “Just because there’s no evidence doesn’t mean they won’t find it later.”
Ben Shapiro’s apt reply: “The moon is made of cheese? Well, have you been to the moon? Do you trust the people who went?”
Herein lies the danger. Once you are in that logical framework, accepting unfalsifiable logic — the same kind <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability">Karl Popper</a> warned destroys real inquiry — you can be sold anything. Conspiracy theorizing without evidence isn’t just wrong; it’s a grift that turns people into marks for clicks, bile, and personalities over principles.
Ask yourself if these voices have strengthened the conservative movement or improved society. The answer is no. Instead, they’ve left a trail of anger, resentment, bitterness, and hopelessness. They raise questions but never offer answers. They push dark narratives instead of teaching what actually works. The end result is paralysis — a generation left stagnant and vulnerable.  
This is the horseshoe theory in action: The far Left and the grievance Right meet in the same dead end of inertia and despair. It’s why so many young men I know are single and sluggish. Ambition is crushed. Relationships die. Society gets weaker. The evidence is all around us; dating apps are flooded with it.
The problem with today’s populace is that too many of us no longer know how to defend an idea. We follow personalities — blindly, willingly — because we like the way they speak and the anger they validate. But when asked why we believe what we believe, or the logic behind it, we fall silent. This is the trap of following people instead of ideas.
Shapiro’s solution — and what I’ve been echoing — is a return to true conservatism: personal responsibility, evidence-based thinking, and relentless problem-solving. We must return to our foundational principles and place reason over raw emotion. We need to read, learn, and embrace a coherent set of values rather than a rotating cast of influencers.
But none of that yearning for knowledge and truth can happen until we first reclaim autonomy over our own lives. As Shapiro puts it, “Individual responsibility is the lodestar of a successful society.”
He’s right. Yes, institutions have failed many people — especially young men. But the answer is not to burn everything down or retreat into conspiracy. The answer is to rebuild on principle, agency, and honest analysis. Pure anti-Left reactionism or personality cults will never save conservatism.
We won’t save conservatism by worshiping personalities or “owning the libs.” We can defend it by knowing why it’s right — by reading the Founders, studying evidence, and choosing reason over emotion.
Institutions failed us, yes. But the solution isn’t burning them down. It’s rebuilding.

Man reading fake news on cell phone

The Grievance Party is Killing Conservatism — And We Need Our Men Back

Conservatism

Masculinity

Victimhood

It&#8217;s becoming a weekly ritual: California&#8217;s First Lady opens her mouth, inserts her foot, and the rest of the country winces.
In a resurfaced interview, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-gavin-newsoms-wife-bizarrely-attempt-to-relate-to-prisoners">Jennifer</a> Siebel Newsom recounts telling prisoners at San Quentin State Prison that she could relate to them. Why? Because at age six, she accidentally struck and killed her eight-year-old sister with a golf cart during a family vacation in Hawaii. She wasn&#8217;t punished, she explained, because it was clearly an accident, and she wanted those inmates to know their crimes were &#8220;probably an accident too.&#8221;
To call that comparison a stretch would be the understatement of the century.
Here&#8217;s the silver lining: if she keeps this up, she will single-handedly torch whatever remains of Gavin Newsom&#8217;s presidential ambitions. But there&#8217;s a larger point that cannot be glossed over. Democrats have long acted like they care more about criminals than their victims. Now they&#8217;re just saying the quiet part out loud.
The <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/02/20/governor-newsom-transforms-san-quentin-opens-nation-leading-learning-center/">prison</a> known as &#8220;The Q&#8221; has become the Newsoms&#8217; progressive playground. The couple has poured millions into rebranding the facility as a &#8220;rehabilitation center&#8221; for wayward souls, even though the vast majority of its 3,500 to 4,000 inmates are Level II and Level IV prisoners with rap sheets containing murder, assault, armed robbery, and rape. This is the same prison that once housed the largest death row in America — until Gavin Newsom imposed a moratorium on executions in 2019. At least <a href="https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/twenty-years-since-last-execution-california-remains-under-execution-moratorium-as-advocates-push-for-mass-clemency-grant">650</a> condemned inmates were then quietly integrated into the general population. Empathy, apparently, has no room for such inconvenient details.
And who exactly are these &#8220;wronged individuals&#8221; the Newsoms are so eager to coddle? <a href="https://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/scott-peterson-case/article267796397.html">Scott</a> Peterson, who murdered his pregnant wife Laci and their unborn son Connor, and <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/polly-klaas-killer-richard-allen-davis-seeks-death-sentence-overturned/#:~:text=Crime-,Judge%20to%20mull%20overturning%20Polly%20Klaas%20killer%20Richard%20Allen%20Davis,governor%20could%20change%20that%20policy.">Richard</a> Allen Davis, who kidnapped and strangled 12-year-old Polly <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/25/us/scott-peterson-off-death-row">Klaas</a>, for starters. The prison has also held Charles Manson, Robert F. Kennedy assassin Sirhan Sirhan, and a rogues&#8217; gallery of serial killers. But still — ‘accidents happen’ the First Partner assures us! The bleeding-heart Newsoms just feel too strongly for these poor souls. They want to ease their sentences and — one suspects eventually — set them free.
This is not an isolated gaffe. Progressives are increasingly defending the perpetrator over the victim, and they&#8217;re doing it with brazen clarity. Remember the State of the Union, when Democrats refused to stand for the simple proposition: &#8220;The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens. If you agree with this statement, stand up and show your support.&#8221;
That moment crystallized the divide. Democrats care about &#8220;them,&#8221; not you. It doesn&#8217;t matter that 18-year-old Sheridan Gorman was allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, or that 15-year-old Amber Paris was allegedly killed by a Guatemalan illegal immigrant speeding through North Carolina, or that 7-year-old Delilah Coleman will never walk again after an illegal immigrant from India crashed into her family&#8217;s car. The progressive catechism demands solidarity with the &#8220;oppressed&#8221; (i.e., criminal) over the &#8220;oppressor&#8221; — no matter the facts.
Despite a $3 billion state deficit in the 2026-27 budget and a total price tag for the &#8220;California Model&#8221; prison overhaul now reaching $14.2 billion, the Newsom administration carved out $78.5 million specifically for San Quentin&#8217;s physical makeover into a feel-good &#8220;rehabilitation center.&#8221; Compare that architectural largesse to the relative crumbs tossed at victim-services programs in the neighborhoods these criminals terrorized.
Violent crime in California remains nearly 10 percent higher than pre-pandemic 2019 levels. Aggravated assaults are still roughly 22 percent higher. The state&#8217;s overall recidivism rate hovers between 45 and 50 percent, even as boutique programs brag about single-digit success stories for a tiny slice of participants. This is an expensive experiment with other people&#8217;s safety.
Which brings us back to Jennifer Siebel Newsom and the story she told those inmates.
She was six years old, playing with her eight-year-old sister Stacey and other children on golf carts during a family vacation in Hawaii in 1981. The cart she was driving slipped into reverse. She did not see her sister behind it. The tragedy that followed was, by any measure, a genuine accident — the kind of event that would leave any child scarred.
&#8220;I felt the pressure to be perfect,&#8221; she later told the Los Angeles Times, &#8220;to make my parents forget, by being two daughters instead of one.&#8221; She described the survivor&#8217;s guilt, the compulsion to compensate, to improve other people&#8217;s lives, to do double the good. It’s no wonder she’s the way she is.
But sympathy does not require the eradication of judgment. The men Jennifer Siebel Newsom addressed at San Quentin were not involved in golf cart accidents. They were convicted killers, rapists, and predators. Projecting her childhood trauma onto their deliberate acts of violence is not empathy. It is a category error with consequences, and those consequences are carried not by the Newsoms but by the families of Laci Peterson, Polly Klaas, and every other victim whose killer now enjoys a governor&#8217;s reprieve and a First “Partner’s” suicidal empathy.
Soft on crime, hard on victims: If this is the compassion the progressive left wants to export to the rest of America, voters would be wise to decline the invitation. Some accidents, after all, are entirely avoidable.

Governor Gavin Newsom is set to be inaugurated for a second term on Friday, Jan. 6, and the preparations for the ceremony are underway in downtown Sacramento.

Jennifer Siebel Newsom Knows Exactly How Murderers Feel

California

Crime

Criminal Justice

Illegal Immigation

Jennifer Newsom

Prisons

Dinesh D&#8217;Souza posed a chilling rhetorical question in his 2020 book, “United States of Socialism”: 
<blockquote>Think how insane it would be if someone said, &#8216;Let’s try slavery again. Slavery didn’t work in the past because we didn’t have the right people to implement it. But this time we’re going to have the right people, and this time we’re going to get it right.&#8217; Yet this is exactly what the socialists say about socialism.</blockquote>
He is still correct six years later. Democrats and their fellow travelers, however,  seem to have doubled down on this backward thinking and are proceeding full steam ahead into socialist waters.
The ultra-progressive Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) released a new poll — their first formal <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/15/is-socialism-going-mainstream-a-new-poll-suggests-it-might-be-00564167">poll</a>, in fact, a telling sign of their extending tentacles into the mainstream — showing that 53% of Democratic voters prefer politicians described as similar to Senator Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, while only 33% favored those similar to Senator Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi. 

These numbers aren&#8217;t an anomaly; they are a trend. Since 2016, rank-and-file Democrats have grown increasingly hostile toward the system that built this country. According to recent Gallup <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/694835/image-capitalism-slips.aspx">data</a>, the gap has expanded to a staggering 24 points, with 66% of Democrats viewing socialism favorably compared to just 42% for capitalism.
What exactly do these voters find agreeable about the ultra-left, socialist wing of their party? For starters, the lofty ideals that big government should be in control, that billionaires are evil, that corporations and high-income earners should be taxed into oblivion, that Congress should enact more regulations on workers and consumers, and that housing, healthcare, and utilities should fall under the purview of the public sector.
To conservatives, most Independents, and even some Democrats, these goals portend only bureaucratic bloat, delays, and the stifling of innovation. Most proponents of capitalism believe the private sector is best equipped to improve Americans&#8217; lives. They generally support lower taxes, oppose government regulation of businesses, and want the private sector to own key industries — like housing, healthcare, and utilities — as confirmed by the DSA&#8217;s own poll.
A staggering 74% of likely Democratic voters said democratic socialism comes closest to their viewpoint. That means America will be seeing a rise in the Bernie, Mamdani, and AOC type — and with it, a severe stifling of growth and innovation, a rapid spike in taxation, and an influx of leftist agenda items into the mainstream.
Bernie Sanders — the unproductive socialist Senator from Vermont, and a man who has added precious little of significance to his state or his country in his decades in office — is now using the socialist wave to push his <a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-is-wrong-about-ai-innovation-ebf22d15?mod=saved_content">latest</a> agenda item: a federal moratorium on the construction of new AI data centers, with his collectivist companion AOC in tow. This moratorium, like so many of the policies this pair champion, would erect burdensome bureaucratic roadblocks that frustrate innovation and squander entrepreneurism. In Bernie&#8217;s world, we should fear millionaires — no wait, billionaires (he&#8217;s now a millionaire himself) — technology, and climate change at all times. Better yet? Just stay in your home until further notice.
This new wave of socialism will also bring suffocating taxes and a collectivist mindset — because, as comrade Mamdani proclaimed, the blanket of collectivism is so warm and cozy. Bernie and his proletariat wouldn&#8217;t just tax the billionaire class; they would enact wealth taxes across the board. Taxing &#8220;unrealized gains&#8221; or net wealth forces billionaires to sell their stocks, which can crash market prices and reduce the capital available for businesses to expand and hire. IRS data shows that the top 1% already pay roughly 40% of all federal income taxes. The Democratic Socialists want you to believe that poor people pay all the taxes and the wealthy get off scot-free — they have it completely backward. They would simply like to take $10 billion from a technology company or its founder and pour it into a government black hole of bureaucracy, where Sanders and his friends reside. Leave that money with founders, entrepreneurs, and innovators, and it goes into rockets, electric cars, and global internet access. As Margaret Thatcher wisely noted — and Elon Musk has echoed — eventually, they run out of other people&#8217;s money, and then they come for you.
The final and perhaps most alarming aspect of this modern socialist resurgence is its Trojan Horse delivery system. Under the banner of the DSA, we see a conglomerate of radicalism — where traditional Marxists, climate extremists, and anti-western agitators coalesce into a single political force. By quietly installing hundreds of activists into local school boards, city councils, and state legislatures, they are executing a long march through the institutions. This isn&#8217;t just a policy shift — it&#8217;s a calculated, multi-level erosion of the capitalist fabric our founders painstakingly cultivated. Apparently, they didn&#8217;t anticipate the &#8220;watermelon coalition&#8221; growing so rapidly, or that its mission — to dismantle the American capitalist empire from within the &#8220;belly of the beast&#8221; — would find willing participants at every level of government.
The good news is that Democrats have tried their socialist playbook before, and while it performs reasonably well at the local level, the national stage has been another story entirely — as 2024 made clear. But that isn&#8217;t stopping them. &#8220;What the mainstream of the party wants is both democratic socialism as a value system and democratic socialist politicians,&#8221; said Gabe Tobias, executive director of the Democratic Socialists of America Fund, to POLITICO.
Democratic socialism is a pretty way of blending class-based Marxism with modern identity politics. It is no longer just about the proletariat — it&#8217;s about mobilizing a coalition of the oppressed to overthrow the oppressor and pave the way for state-sponsored redistribution. It won&#8217;t work. It never does. But it looks like the American left is going to have to find that out the hard way.

Bernie Sanders holds ‘Tax the Rich’ rally in New York City

Democrats Are Going All-In On Socialism. It Portends The Ruin Of American Greatness.

Anti-capitalist

Democratic Socialists Of America

Democrats

Marxism

The party that put biological men on women’s podiums, erased the word “woman” from federal guidance, and whose Supreme Court Justice couldn’t define the word “woman” — is now outraged that Donald Trump fired two underperforming cabinet secretaries. Who happened to be women.
The moment President Donald Trump removed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi from their posts, progressive media conveniently remembered what a woman is and erupted with righteous fury. These are the same commentators who mocked these women for wearing crosses and appearing on television. They spent years calling them racist, unqualified MAGA props. And the same movement that cannot define what a woman is now claims to be their defender, finally discovering their inner feminist. And who is the mascot of this movement but none other than Jennifer Seibel Newsom, who, unsurprisingly, preaches that Trump has launched a “War on Women.”
This narrative doesn’t survive contact with reality.
Seibel’s narrative doesn’t abide the fact that a group of men was the first out the door. Matt Gaetz was forced out eight days before he ever took office. Mike Waltz, the first Senate-confirmed appointee actually fired, exited in May 2025 after the Signal chat scandal. (He was subsequently reassigned as UN Ambassador.) Just this week, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth ousted Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George — a four-star general with over 35 years of service — in the middle of an active conflict with Iran. Dan Bongino served as FBI Deputy Director, delivered results including cracking a four-year-old cold case on the January 6th pipe bombs, and departed on his own terms. These are not the headlines of an administration waging war on women. These are the headlines of an administration that holds everyone accountable.
Look at who is still in the room. Susie Wiles — the first female White House Chief of Staff in American history — is running the operation while battling breast cancer. Karoline Leavitt, the youngest Press Secretary ever, is nine months pregnant and still at the podium. Brooke Rollins, Linda McMahon, and Tulsi Gabbard are all still delivering. Trump built a cabinet with eight women in top-tier roles at the outset — roughly one-third of his team, more than most Republican presidents before him. These women aren’t relinquishing power. They hold some of the most consequential jobs in the federal government because they earned them.
What exactly are Noem and Bondi guilty of? Noem’s tenure included congressional testimony blowups and a $220 million self-promotional ad campaign that looked more like a reelection vehicle than a border enforcement effort. Bondi frustrated the White House with slow progress on the Epstein files and pursuing cases against Trump’s political opponents — the core of her mandate. This administration declared war on DEI from day one and fired Biden holdovers because they undeniably obstructed the agenda. Noem and Bondi were held to that same standard.
Now consider the source of the outrage. Jennifer Seibel Newsom’s monologue lamenting the “devaluation of women” fell on deaf ears — after all, she spent two years slamming these same women. The media now mourning Noem and Bondi called them unqualified MAGA Barbie bigots throughout their entire tenures. Where was the feminist solidarity then?
Compare that to Biden’s record: a vice president famously “unburdened by what has been” — because she’d accomplished virtually nothing. A health secretary who insisted men could become women. A diversity agenda that counted biological males as women. They padded the numbers while magically erasing the category entirely.
What the Left is really angry about isn’t that two women were fired. It’s that this White House refuses to play Identity Politics. That refusal exposes the  hollowness of their so-called “empowerment.” Real power isn’t handed out by quota. It’s earned. Susie Wiles didn’t become the first female Chief of Staff because of a diversity mandate. She got there because she’s the best in the room.
Jennifer Seibel Newsom can lecture us about the patriarchy. But she might start by explaining why the movement she represents spent two years trying to destroy the very women she’s now defending.

2024 California Conference For Women

Feminism Is Never Having To Say You Support Women — Or Not

Feminism

Identity Politics

Trump Administration

Women

The First Lady is meant to embody unity, home, and family. She is the right hand of the president and, in her own way, a mother to the nation. Melania Trump has taken that charge seriously — focusing her platform on children’s well-being, online safety, and opioid abuse prevention, placing service above self and motherhood above politics.
So as 2028 rumors gather and the question of our next president looms, it’s worth considering who would stand beside him and what she would do with the platform.
If California Governor Gavin Newsom becomes our next president, ask yourself how detrimental it would be for our nation if his First “Partner,” Jennifer Siebel Newsom, assumes greater power. Not First Lady — First Partner. The title she bestows on herself tells you everything you need to know, and the damage would follow accordingly.
Siebel Newsom wouldn’t be the mother of our nation. She’d be the caregiver, the parent, whatever gender-neutral term doesn’t upset the acolytes of the far Left who propelled the couple to power.  She wouldn’t reserve that terminology for herself alone; she would conscript the rest of us into it as well.
We need not wonder how she would parent the country. She’s already told us by how she parents her kids.
I recently wrote about how she’s taken her children on what amounts to a Racism Safari through Red State America — hunting for “misogyny, racism, and bullying, oh my!” But a newly resurfaced video reveals the indoctrination began far earlier.
Siebel Newsom told an interviewer that she gives her boys dolls &#8220;to learn that caregiving is not just an activity reserved for women.&#8221; She added that when reading a book with a male protagonist, she simply &#8220;changes the he to a she&#8221; so her sons can see that &#8220;women can be at the center of a story. That women matter. That women are interesting.&#8221; You have to rewrite literature to teach your children that women are interesting? Isn’t this something they should be able to observe at home, or is that a problem in the Newsom household?
Then she went further. We are all, she said, &#8220;recognizing what it is to ultimately deconstruct all of these gender roles and ultimately be human.&#8221; She will &#8220;continue to do her work to try and deconstruct these limiting narratives about what it means to be human.&#8221;
Read that again. In order for the Newsom family to be fully human, they must first dismantle what it means to be a man or woman. I can’t imagine what their dinnertime conversations sound like, but it seems as if the Newsoms are engaging in a war against the imago Dei — the truth that every person is made in God’s image, with an unchangeable, sexed soul.
When elites like Newsom use their platform to rewrite children’s books, hand boys dolls as ideological instruments, and treat biology as a social construct to be dismantled, they don’t make us more human. They make us less. They tell boys that the natural drive to protect and provide is toxic. They tell girls that the capacity to nurture is something to be questioned.
The result? Confused children, skyrocketing rates of anxiety, depression, and identity disorders, and a culture that treats objective reality as bigotry.
The leftist upper echelon calls this harmless. It isn&#8217;t. It is state-adjacent indoctrination with a smile and a reading circle.
True humanity is not found in endless deconstruction. It is found in accepting the Creator’s blueprint, in living out complementarity, and in rejecting the nihilism that insists man can redefine what God has made.
If the Newsoms become our nation’s next parents, we can be sure that their form of “progress” will aggressively erode that very humanity they openly vow to deconstruct — in the form of gender clinics in schools, pronouns in kindergarten, and a generation that no longer knows what a mother is.

California Governor Gavin Newsom Meets With Campaign Staff And Volunteer On Day Of Recall Election Vote

The Newsoms Are Parenting From Another Planet And They Want To Be America’s Parents, Too

Elections

First Lady

Gavin Newsom

gender ideology

Leftists

Parenting

The first sentence of Section I of the 14th Amendment — a small piece in our grand Constitutional puzzle  — has left Justice Samuel Alito and his colleagues considering it a puzzle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a mystery — along with the rest of America.
It reads: &#8220;All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.&#8221;
As the Supreme Court hears arguments in Trump v. Barbara — the birthright citizenship case now before the nation’s highest court — America is finally confronting a constitutional question that should have been settled long ago: Who, exactly, is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States?
Under the prevailing interpretation of this clause, any child born on U.S. soil is automatically an American citizen — full stop. It doesn’t matter whether the mother is a permanent resident, a tourist on a 90-day visa, or someone who crossed the border illegally last Sunday. Born here, citizen here, benefits and rights that come with an American citizenship — activated.
On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, directing federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents to children born here to parents who are either unlawfully present or lawfully present only on a temporary basis. Essentially, if neither of your parents is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, the Trump administration says the 14th Amendment does not guarantee your child citizenship simply by virtue of being born on American soil.
Predictably, lower courts blocked the order. Now it’s before the Supreme Court.
Regardless of the outcome, it’s a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/officialbenshapiro/videos/us-district-judge-temporarily-blocks-president-trumps-executive-order-to-end-bir/1118885666149694/">legal win</a> for the Trump administration — but the broader debate placed a spotlight on a flaw the Founders and post-Civil War Congress never contemplated: the deliberate weaponization of birthright citizenship by adversarial nations.
One slice of the problem reveals the amendment&#8217;s most cynical exploitation: birth tourism, especially by China.
This is an organized, for-profit industry that treats American passports as a commodity. Author and political consultant Peter Schweizer recently documented what he describes as a &#8220;massive effort&#8221; by Chinese nationals — many with Communist Party ties — to secure U.S. citizenship for children raised entirely in China. He estimates that between 750,000 and 1.5 million Chinese-born U.S. citizens are currently being educated under CCP indoctrination.
The business model is brazen. Chinese companies advertise packages costing $40,000 to $80,000. Pregnant women fly in, stay at maternity hotels — often in California — deliver in American hospitals, obtain U.S. birth certificates and passports, and return home. Federal prosecutors have worked to dismantle high-profile rings: in one Southern California case, operators of USA Happy Baby and similar outfits were convicted of conspiracy and money laundering for running maternity houses that served thousands of Chinese clients. The U.S. government has identified hundreds of such firms operating inside China with the sole purpose of gaming our immigration system.
Birth tourism is not the numerical majority — illegal residents produce far more births — but it’s uniquely corrosive. These children are raised abroad with zero lived connection to America. At 21, they gain full voting rights, access to classified jobs, and the power to sponsor their parents for green cards. It is demographic arbitrage. Beijing is cultivating a reserve of future &#8220;anchor citizens&#8221; capable of influencing American elections and policy from within, while owing their primary loyalty elsewhere.
The clause that has long been glossed over — &#8220;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&#8221; — will be central to the administration in oral arguments. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to overturn the Dred Scott decision and secure citizenship for the children of freed slaves. Its authors understood “jurisdiction” to mean full political allegiance, not mere physical presence. Diplomats’ children, children of invading armies, and those whose parents owed no permanent duty to the United States were explicitly excluded.
The Supreme Court’s 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision granted citizenship to the child of legal, domiciled Chinese immigrants, but nothing about illegal entrants or short-term visitors. Illegal immigration on today’s scale and the jet-age business of birth tourism simply did not exist.
As Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro has argued, the phrase &#8220;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&#8221; means you are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation. He makes the point — if an illegal immigrant from Mexico gives birth on U.S. soil, that child remains a Mexican citizen under Mexican law — the child is NOT solely subject to American jurisdiction.
As of 2023, the Pew Research Center estimates roughly 320,000 children are born each year to unauthorized or temporary-migrant mothers, meaning approximately 1 in 10 children born in the United States is born to an illegal immigrant mother.
The vast majority of these children are born to parents who intend to stay and raise them here. Those children receive the same benefits as any other American citizen, and they can eventually sponsor their parents for legal residency — a process commonly known as chain migration. In the meantime, 59% of non-citizen households use one or more major federal welfare programs, compared to 33% of native-born households. It is these citizen children — not their illegal parents, who are often eligible for direct benefits — who strain schools, hospitals, and education services.
The Supreme Court may rule that the executive branch cannot, for now, rewrite 150 years of precedent. But the debate itself has been clarifying. The 14th Amendment was not written to hand foreign nationals a backdoor into American democracy nor to grant them a nine-month maternity vacation.
It’s long past time to unravel that mystery.

Fran Martinez, front, and other protesters gather outside San Bernardino County Superior Court as a

China’s Birth Tourism Profits From Our Constitutional Confusion

14th Amendment

birthright citizenship

China

Supreme Court

That’s what I want to say to Alex Gervasi, a paid Zohran Mamdani influencer, who recently posted a social media <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWehnSricXr/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&amp;igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==">reel</a> declaring that J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series taught her everything she needed to know about “fascism.” Gervasi, who says she volunteers in immigration courts, offered this insightful gem: ICE agents are comparable to Dementors, because both “patrol hallways.” One looks for half-bloods, the other for people illegally residing in the country after bypassing our immigration laws.
Quite the stretch. But I’m glad she made it, because it gives us the opportunity to dismantle her bloody narrative piece by piece.
First, let’s address the premise of her argument: that J.K. Rowling is a “transphobic, right-wing, lunatic.” 

Incorrect — on all counts. 

Rowling wrote the first Harry Potter book in an Edinburgh café while her infant daughter napped beside her, having recently fled an abusive marriage. She became a feminist icon. She is, by any serious measure, a formidably intelligent, philanthropic activist who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to charity. She supported the Labour Party for years, vocally opposed Scottish independence, and was adamantly against Brexit. She was, in short, the liberal establishment’s dream — until she committed the unthinkable: she broke ranks with the progressive vanguard to argue that sex is real, sex is binary, and a woman is not a costume a man can put on.
Rowling is not transphobic. A phobia, by definition, is a fear. She does not fear transgender people — she has explicitly stated she supports their right to live free from harassment. What she maintains, correctly, is that biological sex is real, immutable, and distinct from gender identity, and that self-identification policies can undermine women’s hard-won protections in single-sex spaces, sports, and medical services. She opposes the surgical and chemical alteration of minors. She is commonsensical. She lives in the world of observable reality, not the relativism that insists biological sex is merely a social construct. She is right.
Now, to the Harry Potter-as-an-antifascist-manifesto argument — our influencer seems to have consumed something stronger than Butterbeer, because one simply cannot conflate the half-blood persecution of Voldemort’s regime with American immigration enforcement without abandoning all logical rigor.
Many of the illegal immigrants she is so passionately defending have entered our sovereign nation, bypassed established vetting processes, ignored or fled immigration hearings, and are living among citizens while accessing American housing, education, and healthcare — in some jurisdictions, even participating in elections. Contrast that with the legal immigrant: a cornerstone of this nation, who spent time, money, and genuine effort into assimilation, who learned the language, who embraced American civic culture. Those muggles are welcome. They are, in every meaningful sense, American.
A half-blood — a person born to one magical and one non-magical parent — has no analog to an illegal immigrant. If anything, a half-blood maps far more neatly onto an American citizen with one immigrant parent. The persecution Rowling depicts is irrational bigotry directed at an immutable biological characteristic. Illegal entry into a country is not a birth status. It is a policy violation.
As for ICE agents being Dementors? ICE officers enforce democratically passed federal law. They detain individuals who have violated immigration statutes, often after due process proceedings, and their work directly protects American communities from cartel activity, fentanyl trafficking, and the strain of an overwhelmed immigration system. Dementors, for the record, guard actual criminals and feed on human despair. If we’re hunting for that particular archetype in the real world, I’d suggest looking considerably further left. 
The crowning irony is that J.K. Rowling did mock fascism in her books. She did mock racism. She continues to oppose both. She constructed an entire fictional universe as a sustained meditation on the dangers of blood purity ideology, authoritarianism, and mob conformity. She won. The books are beloved the world over — including, apparently, by people who now use them to smear her as a fascist because she won’t agree that biology is a social construct. 

We do not live under a fascist regime. Our leaders are not rounding up people for their bloodlines. These are rhetorical cudgels, deployed in lieu of actual argument when policy disagreement becomes too uncomfortable to engage with honestly.
J.K. Rowling simply acknowledges that biological sex is a real and immutable characteristic. In the wizarding world of Harry Potter, perhaps the rules are different. But we do not live in the wizarding world. We live in this one. Pretending otherwise — subordinating observable and scientific reality to ideological comfort — is not progressivism. It is, to borrow a phrase, mental.

Hogwarts Castle in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter at Universal Studios Hollywood

Zohran Mamdani Superfan Imagines A Harry Potter Fascist Fantasyland

Anti-ICE

JK Rowling

U.S. Politics

Sarah Trone Garriott has a Harvard Divinity degree, a Lutheran ordination, and a history of calling Christianity a threat. Now she wants to be your Congresswoman.
Garriott, who is currently serving in the Iowa State Senate and running to flip Iowa’s Third Congressional District blue, made remarks in 2023 that should follow her to every campaign stop, debate stage, and Iowa church pew between now and November. Speaking about religious conservatives, she described them as &#8220;uncomfortable&#8221; — as something that “feels very threatening” — and linked Christianity itself to “political violence.” Not radical Islam. Not jihadist ideology. Christianity. 

She said this as an ordained minister of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Three years later, with Holy Week upon us and a string of Islamic terror attacks fresh in the national memory, Garriott’s remarks deserve to be exhumed, examined, and explained. Not because they were gaffes — they weren’t. They deserve attention because they are a window into exactly what the modern religious Left believes: that the greatest threat to civil society is not the ideology responsible for over 60,800 terror attacks in the last half-century, but the people filling church pews on Palm Sunday.
During Holy Week, as Christian communities are still burying their dead from coordinated massacres in Nigeria, this inversion of morality is morally obscene.
Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world, so it was unfortunately not a complete shock that on Palm Sunday, while progressive politicians were busy casting aspersions on churchgoing Christians, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/30/world/africa/palm-sunday-attack-nigeria-dead.html">coordinated attacks</a> devastated Christian communities across central and northern Nigeria in what survivors are calling the Palm Sunday Massacres. Entire congregations were targeted. Families were slaughtered on one of the holiest days of the liturgical calendar. Christianity is not causing violence, Reverend Garriott; it is absorbing it. 
This is not an anomaly. It is an escalating pattern that cowardly politicians refuse to name. In March of 2026 alone, there were four confirmed Islamist terror attacks on Western soil, with at least four additional major plots thwarted before they reached fruition. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, the trend driving mass-casualty violence is not Christian nationalism — it’s the jihadist radicalism that’s been methodically seeping into this country for decades: Over 60,800 Islamic terror attacks were carried out globally in the last fifty years. The comparable figure for attacks attributed to Christian or Jewish extremism amounts to a few hundred. These are not remotely equivalent threats, and any elected official who pretends otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest. 
So what, precisely, does threaten these power-hungry clerics? It is not the Sermon on the Mount. It is not the notion that He is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). What threatens them is the downstream consequence of a populace that actually lives by those words. Christians grounded in Scripture are harder to manipulate, less dependent on the government as their provider, and far less likely to hand power to pseudo-believers whose lives represent the antithesis of everything Christ commands. This dynamic was on full display just this week when Daily Wire host <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wire-host-fires-back-after-the-view-melts-down-over-her-support-for-young-families">Isabel Brown</a> was publicly castigated for the radical act of suggesting marriage and children are worth pursuing — a principle so foundational it runs from Genesis through the Pauline epistles. Garriott herself has voted against protecting women’s sports from biological males and against banning gender-transition procedures for minors. That is the true threat they fear — not violence, not extremism, but a people too grounded in faith to go along with these cultural lies. 
 
Certainly, there are wolves in the pulpit. There are leaders who have abandoned orthodoxy, twisted Scripture for popularity and applause, and led congregations into confusion rather than conviction. That apostasy is real and genuinely threatening to the Church and her faithful. But the solution to bad theology is not to hand political power to the theologians perpetrating it. In a world where America is still called the “Great Satan” by those who mean it literally, and where our cultural foundations are being eroded daily, authentic Christians are not the problem. They are the last best hope of restoring the Christian values upon which this republic was built.
Sarah Trone Garriott is a wolf in pearls — ordained, Harvard-educated, interfaith-credentialed, and deeply hostile to the faith she claims to represent. A minister who thinks Christianity is an imminent threat is not a pastor; she is a politician in a collar. Don’t let her do to Iowa’s Third District what Judas did in the garden — betray it with a kiss, wearing the vestments of a friend.

Midterm Fight Over Trump Bill, Tariffs Starts Early At Iowa Fair

She Said Christianity Feels ‘Threatening.’ Now She Wants Your Vote.

She Said Christianity Feels 'Threatening.' Now She Wants Your Vote.

Congress

Iowa

Politics

Radical Islam

Religion

California Governor Gavin Newsom excels at failing, as a cringe-worthy example involving his “First Partner,” Jennifer Siebel Newsom, reveals. With the confidence of a Pacific Heights wine mom, Siebel Newsom told former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki in a 2023 interview that she had deliberately taken her children to Alabama, Florida, and other Red states so they could witness bullying, misogyny, and racism firsthand. It was educational poverty tourism for the Bay Area set. 
Siebel Newsom embarked on a fact-finding mission to discover she was missing the facts. Too bad the Sunshine State’s governor failed to intercept her on the way out — it would’ve saved the first couple a lot of time and frequent flyer miles — because the data exists and it starts in their own backyard.
Since 2015, <a href="https://data-openjustice.doj.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/Hate%20Crime%20In%20CA%202024.pdf#:~:text=From%202015%20to%202024%2C%20hate%20crime%20events,2023%20to%202%2C023%20in%202024%20(Table%2011).">hate</a> crime events in California have increased by 141.7%. In 2024 alone, hate crime offenses rose nearly 9%, with anti-LGBTQ incidents up over 13% and anti-Jewish bias events reaching 310. Meanwhile, California’s own Civil Rights Department estimates that roughly 1 in 11 Californians directly experienced an act of hate in 2024 — approximately 3.1 million people. That is not a Red State statistic. That is the state Siebel Newsom’s husband governs, with runaway hate crime statistics and a blatant failure of public safety. 
The racial inequality picture inside California is no more flattering. The black homeownership rate in California stands at just 36.6% — nearly 28 percentage points below the rate for white households, the second-lowest homeownership rate of any state in the nation. According to the most recent census data, the gap between white and black homeownership rates in California has actually widened — from 20 points in 1980 to 27 points in 2020. A UCLA analysis found that closing the racial <a href="https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/persistent-gaps-black-californians-would-take-over-248-years-close">gap</a> between black and white Californians at the current rate of progress would take over 248 years.
Contrast those findings with the targets of Siebel Newsom’s red-state &#8220;racism safari.&#8221; Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana — the very states she treated as cautionary tales for her children — consistently rank among the lowest in per-capita hate crime rates nationwide. Far from being the racist hellscapes her narrative requires, these states are, statistically, among the least likely places in America for a bias-motivated crime to actually occur.
Black Americans are noticing. They are leaving California and <a href="https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/do-southern-states-offer-black-families-best-opportunities-build-wealth#:~:text=/-,Do%20Southern%20States%20Offer%20Black%20Families%20the%20Best%20Opportunities%20to,segregation%20and%20continuing%20discrimination%20today.">relocating</a> to the South in significant numbers, drawn by lower costs of living, genuine economic opportunity, and the basic dignity of being able to afford a home. The states Siebel Newsom used as props for her children’s moral education — Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas — have historically led the nation in both the number and percentage of black elected officials. These are not Jim Crow relics preserved in amber. They are places where black Americans hold real, consequential political power, and increasingly, real economic opportunity.
On the other hand, California lost over <a href="https://usafacts.org/answers/is-the-population-growing-or-shrinking/state/california/">200,000</a> residents to other states in the last year alone. These are people escaping not Republican cruelty, but Democratic policy outcomes: soaring taxes, pervasive homelessness, brazen property crime, and a cost of living that has rendered the middle class functionally extinct in most major cities. 
What Siebel Newsom failed to address was her own house.
Just last week, her husband — the former mayor of the most gay-friendly city in America, San Francisco — used homosexuality as a <a href="https://x.com/GovPressOffice/status/2036864339722875380?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fmedia%2Fnewsom-team-mocks-conservative-snowflakes-after-gay-dating-app-insults-spark-homophobia-claims">slur</a>. Also last week, a scheduled debate among Democrats vying for the California gubernatorial nomination had to be canceled because the candidate field was too <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/2028-so-white-why-californias-canceled-debate-shows-democrats-incoming-race-problem?author=Ben+Domenech&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=2028+So+White%3A+Why+California%E2%80%99s+Canceled+Debate+Shows+Democrats%E2%80%99+Incoming+Race+Problem">white</a>. In California, the state is lecturing the rest of the country on racial inclusivity. And who could forget Gavin Newsom’s recent attempt to connect with black voters by informing them that he, too, can’t read. These aren’t exactly the types of things one would include in the equal rights “W” column.
Then there is the misogyny. Siebel Newsom built her public identity around Miss Representation, a documentary that explicitly condemns the objectification and exploitation of women in Hollywood. It is her brand and the moral foundation of her platform as First Partner. So it is worth noting that, even after Weinstein&#8217;s lawyers <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/defense-attorney-jennifer-newsom-transactional-sex-weinstein/">described</a> their relationship as &#8220;transactional sex,&#8221; she still kept in <a href="https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/11/18/ufgj-n18.html">contact with him</a>, and asked Weinstein — the very face of the exploitation she built a career opposing — for PR help regarding her husband&#8217;s extramarital affair. This was all after the alleged assault took place.
And when it became public that her husband cheated on his first wife with the wife of his then-campaign manager, she reportedly called the other woman the &#8220;culprit.&#8221; The woman who made a film about how women are blamed and diminished for being victims called the woman her husband pursued the culprit.
For someone who has built a career performing progressive virtue, the optics aren’t ideal.
If Jennifer Siebel Newsom wanted to show her children what intolerance and moral failure look like, she did not need to book flights south. She could have opened the door of her $9 million gated estate and schlepped through the state her husband governs. All the tent cities, crumbling schools, and public disorder are on full display.
The most corrosive thing about performative progressivism is not the hypocrisy itself — hypocrisy is often a human constant. Rather, it&#8217;s the confidence. The certainty that the lesson is always somewhere else, in someone else’s state, in someone else’s home, even as the governor’s policy failures are undeniable.

California Governor Gavin Newsom Interview On The Circuit

Hey Jennifer Newsom, Is The Racism In The Room With You Right Now?

Blue States

governance

Hate Crime

public policy

There&#8217;s a thought experiment I want you to sit with for a moment.
God forbid Barack Obama passed away — shot in front of thousands of people, the moment captured on every phone in the crowd and splashed across every screen in the country within minutes — and Michelle Obama was left to pick up the pieces, preserve his legacy, and carry the torch in the only way she knew how. Do you think you would see ultra-famous white comedians painting themselves in blackface and mocking the way she grieves? Without consequence? Without wall-to-wall outrage? No. Of course not. Because that would be racist, and it would be cruel, and everyone would say so loudly and immediately.
When the shoe is on the other foot, no one seems to care.
Druski — born Drew Desbordes — has become one of the most commercially ubiquitous comedic presences in America. The COVID-era social media comedian turned pop culture fixture hosts a satirical dating show, joined the 2026 season of The Voice, and has assembled a brand portfolio that reads like a Fortune 500 roll call: T-Mobile, Amazon, the NFL, Nike, Happy Dad Hard Seltzer, PrizePicks, Meta, NBC/Peacock, Dunkin&#8217;, and Google Pixel. He has over 20 million followers. He is everywhere.
And this week, he decided to use that platform to mock a grieving widow.
In a now-viral video, Druski appears in full whiteface — skin painted white, blonde wig, blue contacts, all-white pantsuit — complete with fireworks and dramatic stage lighting. He mocks Erika Kirk, the recently widowed CEO of Turning Point USA, for continuing to make public appearances in the wake of her husband&#8217;s assassination. He ridicules the Trump administration&#8217;s Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt for offering prayers and honoring American symbols during press conferences. He depicts a blonde conservative in pink, riding with a white lap dog, singing Katy Perry&#8217;s &#8220;California Girls&#8221; on the way to a drive-through. And he lampoons Erika&#8217;s composure during a recent interview with Bari Weiss, turning grief into punchline fodder.
I&#8217;ll be honest: I barely knew who Druski was before this week. Unfortunately, I know who he is now.
Here&#8217;s what I&#8217;ll give him: conservative women are not humorless. We can laugh at ourselves and take a punch. The Leavitt bit? Cheap, but fine. The drive-through? Inaccurate — the last time I heard Katy Perry sing, she was in space. But there is a line between political satire and using a widowed mother as a punchline for 80 million viewers, and Druski crossed it without flinching.
Charlie Kirk was assassinated last year in front of thousands of people, while doing the thing he loved most — talking to young people and making the case for his country. We watched it on our phones. We were horrified. Then heartbroken. Then — naively, perhaps — hopeful that the brutality of it might draw some line we could all agree not to cross. Political violence is bad. Killing people for their beliefs is wrong. Surely that much was universal.
We thought wrong. Too many on the left laughed, celebrated, and mocked the tragedy. They worked to tarnish his name before he was even buried. Jimmy Kimmel told blatant lies masquerading as jokes and was suspended for it. And now, six months later, a comedian with a nine-figure brand portfolio is degrading Charlie&#8217;s widow for daring to honor his memory — for refusing to disappear.
That&#8217;s not a comedy bit. That&#8217;s cruelty in makeup.
Druski is not some fringe provocateur. He is corporate America&#8217;s darling — the face you see when you open an app, watch a game, or scroll through your feed. So, at what point does the ubiquitous ad avatar become a liability?
This isn&#8217;t his first controversy. In September 2025, he enraged fans with a whiteface skit at a NASCAR race, portraying a caricatured &#8220;proud American&#8221; redneck. Then came the NFL Honors, where he mispronounced wide receiver Jaxon Smith-Njigba&#8217;s name in a way that left Buckeye fans — myself included — vexed. Each time, the brands shrugged.
The Daily Wire reached out to Druski’s active brand partnerships, T-Mobile, Happy Dad, and NBC/Peacock, asking whether they intend to retain Desbordes as a brand partner in light of this content. All but T-Mobile failed to respond, offering this: &#8220;The content in question is not in any way affiliated with T-Mobile, nor is it a reflection of our brand and values.&#8221; A statement of distance — but not of severance. Druski remains their Chief Swagger Officer. NBC said nothing. He remains on The Voice.
So the answer to the question in the headline appears to be: yes, you can.
At least for now.
Grief is not a costume. A widow is not a prop. And a woman who lost her husband to a political assassination — who chooses to stay in the fight and keep his work alive — deserves more than a whiteface parody from a man who hawks hard seltzer and phone plans for a living.
Conservatives don&#8217;t expect special treatment. We just expect consistency. If mockery of grief is off-limits for certain races and certain parties, it must be off-limits for all. Until corporations decide that values actually mean something more than virality and quarterly earnings, they will keep propping up figures like Druski — who demeans the bereaved and cashes seven-figure checks for the privilege.
The brands have spoken. Or rather, they haven&#8217;t. And that silence says it all.

The Voice – Season 29

T-Mobile Distances Itself From ‘Chief Switching Officer’ Druski After Sketch Mocking Erika Kirk

Menu

Chloe Trapanotto