JD Vance rejects Democrats' narrative, names the 'real threat to democracy'



Democrats and elements of the liberal media have suggested ad nauseam that President Donald Trump, his supporters, and like-minded Republicans constitute threats to democracy.

After a Biden official's group got Trump temporarily removed in 2023 from the presidential primary ballot in Colorado, former President Joe Biden tweeted, "Trump poses many threats to our country: The right to choose, civil rights, voting rights, and America's standing in the world. But the greatest threat he poses is to our democracy."

Years after calling her political opponents "enemies of the state," Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in April 2024 that Trump is "a great threat to our democracy."

'It was a radical success.'

Less than a day after a Democratic donor who claimed "DEMOCRACY is on the ballot" in the 2024 election allegedly tried to assassinate Trump, New York magazine rushed to inform its readers that "Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, and saying so is not incitement."

It's clear that this mantra is little more than a political cudgel intended for those who threaten to diminish Democrats' hold on power. Nevertheless, its repetition has prompted some on the right to seriously reflect on that which actually threatens the American republic's democratic processes.

In his keynote speech at the Ohio Republican Party dinner in Lima, Ohio, on Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance made clear that the apparent effort by Democrats to import and then normalize new voter blocs rather than engage and help homegrown Americans — to seek out a new demos as opposed to serving the current demos — is the real threat.

RELATED: Rubio, Vance outline the 'work of a generation,' next steps for the American renewal: 'This is a 20-year project'

Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images

The vice president stressed that illegal immigration is "the most important issue confronting this country" and "the most important issue that was destroying this country for over the past four years."

"If I had stood here in October of 2024, and you had told me that after 45 days of the Trump administration we would have illegal border crossings down between 95% and 99%, I would have said, 'Whoa, whoa, whoa. I believe the president is very serious about this, and I believe the president is very effective, but there is no way that we're going to have illegal border crossings down that much,'" said Vance. "I'm happy to report that one and a half months into the Trump administration, we had illegal border crossings down 99%. It was a radical success."

"I believe that saved the United States of America," continued Vance, "because we know exactly what the Democrats [would do] — not because we had to read their minds but because Democrats would go out and say that what they wanted to do with those 20, 25 million illegal aliens is give every single one of them the right to vote and turn them into permanent wards of the Democratic Party."

'Now, we have largely solved that problem.'

Democratic lawmakers have worked feverishly in recent years to give foreign nationals the right to vote.

Certain jurisdictions in California, Maryland, and Vermont allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. There are also indications that some noncitizens have been registered in Democratic enclaves to vote in federal elections — a troubling matter that the Trump administration is taking seriously.

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against the Orange County registrar of voters for refusing to provide the DOJ with records pertaining to the "removal of non-citizens from its voter registration list and for failing to maintain an accurate voter list in violation of the Help America Vote Act."

— (@)

Meanwhile, in the District of Columbia, noncitizens are allowed to vote in local elections so long as they were in the city for at least 30 days before the election. According to the Washington Post, of the over 500 foreign nationals who voted last year — including Ethiopians, Salvadorans, and Iranians — 310 registered as Democrat, 169 as independent, 28 as Republican, and 16 as Statehood Green.

Democrats evidently aspired to go far beyond local elections with their noncitizen voting push.

RELATED: Trump doesn’t threaten democracy — he threatens its ruling class

Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

The Democratic National Convention's 2024 platform endorsed a mass amnesty plan that would have paved the way to citizenship for millions of illegal aliens.

The Maine Wire noted that the platform incorporated language from the U.S. Citizenship Act, an inert bill from Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) that would change the word "alien" to "noncitizen" in the immigration code and allow illegal aliens to become "lawful prospective immigrants," thereby setting them on the path to legally voting in federal elections.

Even though Trump saw gains in each of the seven swing states in the 2024 election, giving voting rights to millions of yesteryear's illegal aliens could significantly alter America's political destiny.

"If we allowed that to happen, if we allowed the Democratic Party to import voters rather than persuade voters, that would have been the end of American democracy," said Vance. "You hear the American media say all the time that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy. The threat to democracy is Democrats importing voters rather than persuading their fellow citizens."

The vice president proceeded to provide his audience with some good news.

"Now, we have largely solved that problem," said Vance. "If you look, for the first time in 50 years — the first time in 50 years — we now have net negative illegal immigration."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Neera Tanden and the Biden autopen: Probe progresses with help of Trump-centered poetic justice



Neera Tanden, a prominent fixture in the Democratic establishment who served as director of the Biden White House Domestic Policy Council, appeared before the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday for hours-long, closed-door testimony concerning Biden's cognitive decline while in office, its cover-up, and its alleged exploitation behind the scenes.

Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, Tanden, a former Hillary Clinton aide, stuck with the narrative that Biden was mentally fit during his tenure, her opening statement showed. She also suggested that the controversial use of the autopen — a machine used to affix Biden's signature to a myriad of documents, which critics suspect was abused by unelected individuals to advance radical agendas and to circumvent the will of the American people — was above-board.

Tanden's spin notwithstanding, congressional investigators appear to have made headway on Tuesday thanks in part to some poetic justice.

Shield withdrawn

Despite protest from President Donald Trump and warnings from numerous critics about setting an undesirable precedent, Biden waived executive privilege in October 2021 and directed the National Archives to furnish congressional partisans with Trump-era White House records pertaining to the Jan. 6 protest at the U.S. Capitol.

Biden's counsel noted in a letter that asserting executive privilege was "not in the best interests of the United States."

University of Virginia School of Law professor Saikrishna Prakash, among the legal scholars at the time who understood this move could come back to bite Biden and his advisers, told the Associated Press, "Every time a president does something controversial, it becomes a building block for future presidents."

Trump stacked on this building block this week in the interest of helping along the Oversight Committee's investigation into the autopen scandal.

RELATED: Oversight Project over target: Dems seethe as facade of autopen presidency comes crashing down

Photo by Evan Vucci-Pool/Getty Images

Gary Lawkowski, deputy counsel to Trump, noted in a letter Tuesday — which echoed the letter previously penned by Biden's counsel in 2021 — that in light of the "unique and extraordinary nature of the matters under investigation, President Trump has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the national interest, and therefore is not justified, with respect to particular subjects within the purview of the House Oversight Committee."

After highlighting Tanden's assessment of Biden's mental fitness and her knowledge of who exercised executive powers during his tenure, Lawkowski stressed:

The extraordinary events in this matter constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an accommodation to Congress. Evidence that aides to former President Biden concealed information regarding his fitness to exercise the powers of the President — and may have unconstitutionally exercised those powers themselves to aid in their concealment — implicates both Congress' constitutional and legislative powers.

Blaze News reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Deprived of the shield of executive privilege and thus required to provide lawmakers with "unrestricted testimony," Tanden headed into what she later referred to as a "thorough process."

— (@)

Tanden's admission

The Oversight Project, a government watchdog, revealed in early March that Biden's signature on numerous pardons, executive orders, and other documents of national consequence was likely machine-generated.

The watchdog group also highlighted possible evidence that the autopen was used on some of these documents without Biden's knowledge and while he was absent.

Around the time of the Oversight Project's initial reporting on the autopen, former White House stenographer Mike McCormick told Blaze News that he felt Tanden was a person who could have potentially taken advantage of her position in the White House with regard to the autopen.

RELATED: Don’t let the Biden autopen scandal become just another lame hearing

Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

McCormick, who neither worked in the White House with Biden after 2017 nor personally met Tanden, said she was often praised by the former president as a "super aggressive, very progressive" operative.

"She would be the person," the stenographer continued. "If she came into his White House knowing that [Biden] was debilitated, would she be the kind of person who would take advantage of that? I think she would."

While it remains unclear whether Tanden misused the autopen, McCormick was right on the money regarding her use of it.

After noting that she did not believe that the committee's investigation was a "worthy subject of oversight," Tanden told lawmakers in her opening statement that when serving as Biden's staff secretary, she was "responsible for handling the flow of documents to and from the president" and was "authorized to direct that autopen signatures be affixed to certain categories of documents."

McCormick was contacted for comment after news of the White House counsel's letter to Tanden broke. McCormick explained that Tanden's placement in the White House by Ron Klain, Biden's chief of staff from 2021 to 2023, was a grave mistake.

"[Klain's] decision to put Neera Tanden, an operative's operative, in charge the staff secretary's office is an extraordinary red flag that must be thoroughly investigated," McCormick told Blaze News.

'I think the American people want to know.'

When Ed Martin, the Department of Justice pardon attorney and director of the DOJ's Weaponization Working Group, announced his investigation last month into the questionable "autopen" pardons issued in the final days of the Biden White House, he indicated that a whistleblower had identified three people who controlled access to the autopen.

"They were making money off of it," Martin said.

Martin did not name the three suspects outright and made no reference to Tanden. He did, however, identify several "gatekeepers" who were "dominant characters in the White House," one of whom was Klain, whose office repeatedly hosted George Soros' son Alexander Soros and who returned to the fold last year amid Biden's debate preparation.

RELATED: Ed Martin floats names of 'gatekeepers' in Biden autopen controversy; Trump accuses exploiters of 'TREASON'

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Tanden told congressional investigators on Tuesday that as of May 2023, she no longer had "any responsibilities in connection with the use of the autopen."

Tanden further suggested that she had "no experience in the White House that would provide any reason to question [Biden's] command as president," adding that "he was in charge."

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the Oversight Committee, told the Washington Examiner that Tanden was "very forthcoming" and that the committee now has "a lot better understanding of how things worked in the Biden administration."

Next steps

Prior to the transcribed interview on Tuesday, Comer told reporters that Tanden's was the "first of many interviews with people that we believe were involved in the autopen scandal in the Biden administration. We have a lot of questions to ask each witness."

The transcripts will be released once all of the interviews are completed.

"I think the American people want to know. I think there is a huge level of curiosity in the press corps with respect to who was actually calling the shots in the Biden administration," said Comer.

Former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump and former Idaho Solicitor General Theodore Wold underscored the gravity of the matter in his testimony last week before the the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, noting that the "U.S. Constitution vests the executive power in a single person: the president."

Whether signing an executive order, issuing a pardon, or taking any other action permitted him by the Constitution, "the president's signature is itself the protection of democratic principles. When the president signs, he communicates his assent and endorsement of the action he takes," said Wold.

Wold noted that in numerous instances where the autopen was used, there was no indication "that anyone other than staff were making these decisions."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump doesn’t threaten democracy — he threatens its ruling class



For years, I’ve heard the same complaint from friends, family, and the nightly news: Donald Trump is his own worst enemy. The real problem, they say, is the man’s personality. If only he weren’t so obnoxious, if only he didn’t speak off the cuff or insult his critics, then maybe his enemies would stop calling him a Nazi. Maybe the protests would stop. Maybe the country could calm down.

It’s true that Trump’s tactlessness and unreflective speech can grate, even on those who support him. But let’s not pretend his critics hold anyone else to the same standard. Where was their outrage when Joe Biden declared that Trump supporters were “the only garbage I see,” smeared the GOP as “semi-fascists" and "terrorists,” or cursed at reporters who dared ask unscripted questions?

The rage over Trump’s language comes from anxiety. The ruling class members fear that his return to power could disrupt their ideological monopoly.

The same people clutching pearls over Trump’s tone cheered on mouthy scolds like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. They ignored threats by former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who warned Supreme Court justices against overturning Roe v. Wade outside their own courthouse. When it comes to rhetoric, Democrats don’t offend them — only Republicans do.

And the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. Anti-white racism is commonplace among Democrats. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) mocked Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) as a purveyor of “white tears” for disagreeing with her. Crockett also derided “mediocre white boys” who oppose race-based preferences and once referred to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott as “Governor Hot Wheels” without consequence. No apology. No media outcry. Just applause.

At some point, the conclusion becomes obvious: The outrage over Trump’s rhetoric has little to do with his words. It has everything to do with the groups he opposes. His critics don’t hate how he speaks. They hate what he threatens.

If rhetoric really mattered, then Democrats would call out their own side for the endless stream of vile speech and political violence. But they don’t. They won’t. Because they know it’s not about tone. It’s about power.

Would the Trump-haters change their tune if a more well-mannered Republican — House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), or even Dr. Oz — pushed Trump’s policies? Don’t bet on it. Democrats didn’t tone down their vitriol even after two assassination attempts against Trump, the second by a man, Ryan Routh, who explicitly cited Democratic rhetoric and media hysteria as his motivation.

Legacy media rage against Trump not because he speaks crudely, but because he disrupts their agenda. He guts bloated agencies, cuts funding to woke nonprofits, and works to dismantle bureaucracies like the Department of Education — which caters to teachers’ unions but has done zilch to improve American learning.

Trump also dares to enforce immigration law. After Democrats spent years encouraging waves of illegal immigration, he tried to reverse the damage — and they called him a “tyrant.” He asserts that men are men and women are women, even as the ruling class invents new genders and demands compliance.

RELATED: Progressives’ ‘democracy’ is just a cover for unaccountable power

Blaze News Illustration

The ruling class can get away with its double standard because its multiple armies close ranks to defend any lie or exaggeration from its government placeholders. When Biden labeled Trump’s voters as terrorists, the foreign policy blob, the think-tank class, and the media all fell in line. Groups like the Council on Foreign Relations echoed the claim, amplifying a fantasy of right-wing extremism while excusing left-wing bigotry.

Search engines bury criticism of Democrats while promoting glowing defenses of their nastiest remarks. The same media that spent years covering for Biden’s obvious cognitive decline and told you it’s a conspiracy theory to question his mental fitness to serve now say they had no idea anything was wrong. Trust them.

And don’t forget the cultural cleanup crews. During Pride Month, every major corporation, institution, and media outlet falls in lockstep. No dissent. No nuance. Just forced applause for whatever new orthodoxy the cultural left pushes. (Though that might be changing.)

The rage over Trump’s language comes from anxiety. The ruling class members fear that his return to power could disrupt their ideological monopoly. Even modest success in weakening their grip on government, culture, or education terrifies them. Because once that monopoly breaks, their entire edifice could fall.

That’s why Trump provokes such hysteria. Not because he insults people. But because he threatens the system that protects their power.

And maybe, just maybe, that’s a good thing.

Biden Aide Admits Staff Did ‘Undemocratic Things’ Because Trump Was ‘Existential Threat To Democracy’

A longtime aide to former President Joe Biden admitted that White House staff felt justified doing “undemocratic things” during his term in office because they believed President Donald Trump posed an existential threat to American democracy. The revelation came during an appearance by Axios reporter Alex Thompson on “Fox News Sunday” with Shannon Bream, where […]

How the Biden regime went from ‘scamdemic’ to sympathy tour



Just as they used COVID-19 to drag Joe Biden across the finish line in the 2020 election, the Democrat-media complex is now exploiting Biden’s prostate cancer diagnosis in a naked attempt to deflect attention from the very people who rigged the last game.

The same political operatives, government lifers, and corporate media hacks who pushed lockdowns, censored dissent, and rewrote election rules are at it again — weaponizing illness for power. Of course, everything they touch is diseased. It always has been — and not just biologically.

Everything Democrats have sold us since Super Tuesday in 2020 has been a demonic lie in a battle for the soul of our country.

The dark strongholds and principalities that have guided and defined the entirety of the Biden-era plague are simply not from the mortal world. As human beings, we are not capable of the level of plotting and scheming that defines modern-day Democrats and their media minions.

Back in early 2020, just before Super Tuesday, we watched the Democrat-media complex take the lifeless Biden campaign, dead and buried — and resurrect it in less than 48 hours, blowing the front-running commie, Bernie Sanders, completely out of the water. Suddenly, the same Biden who had zero wins before that moment — especially when compared to Sanders and Mayor Pete Buttigieg — was winning states by large margins, even though he had never even visited them or could not even name them on a map between bites of pudding.

And then, about two weeks later, the world shut down because of the “scamdemic.” The resurrected dead guy got to run for the most powerful office in the world from his basement, culminating in an election where the Democrats won by razor-thin margins in the most decisive states through unprecedented mail-in balloting.

Somehow, the rejection rate of mail-in ballots dropped in those places — despite the record volume flooding the polls. This is the first government system in all of human history that became more efficient with increased volume — and it happened in places completely run by Democrats.

Signs of decline

Remember the shock in 2016 when Donald Trump won four decisive states by fewer than 80,000 votes? That narrow victory sparked years of breathless media coverage, congressional investigations, and discredited conspiracy theories about Russian collusion.

Now contrast that with 2020.

When Joe Biden “won” six key states by a combined margin of fewer than 40,000 votes, anyone who questioned the outcome faced cancellation — or even criminal prosecution. If you raised doubts while sitting in Nancy Pelosi’s chair dressed like the Minnesota Vikings mascot, you risked years in prison.

Even before the COVID shutdown and the orchestrated 2020 campaign from the basement began, Biden’s decline was obvious. My show had front-row access to the Iowa caucuses, and I saw more of the Democratic field up close than most national reporters.

At the time, it wasn’t easy to say out loud what many could already see: Biden showed clear signs of cognitive decline. But looking back, a lot of things that seemed strange in the moment now make perfect — and very dark — sense.

RELATED: Megyn Kelly forces Jake Tapper to face brutal facts about his complicity in Biden health debacle

Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for The Atlantic

How about calling a lid at noon most days in order to go back to Delaware after becoming president? Well, if you were undergoing some form of cancer treatment or chemo, it was probably a lot simpler to keep that a secret as opposed to whatever’s going on inside the White House. Then again, they once claimed they couldn’t identify the source of a bag of cocaine found in the West Wing — at the same time Hunter Biden was visiting.

Or how about the man who gets the best health care on earth not knowing until four months ago that he had one of the most detectable forms of cancer — and he only found out when it was already in its most aggressive stage? Moreover, the news dropped ahead of the imminent release of special counsel Robert Hur’s audio recordings during his 2023 interview with Biden over his alleged mishandling of classified government documents. Is that a coincidence?

They gaslit us

The verdict is in. They gaslit the public for years about President Biden’s obvious mental decline. Now they expect us to shut up and feel sorry for him — because he has cancer.

It’s a distraction campaign, plain and simple. They’re using a sympathy diagnosis to bury the real question: Who has been running the White House while Biden signed off on policy with an autopen?

It started with craven media operatives like Jake Tapper. CNN ran headlines mocking conservatives for raising concerns about Biden’s mental acuity, just one day before the Biden-Trump debate last summer. Then 65 million Americans watched the dementia presidency unravel in real time, and suddenly CNN had no choice but to admit that he couldn’t run again.

Within 24 hours, the same network that dismissed “conspiracy theories” conceded the obvious. And just like that, the Democratic establishment and its media enablers staged a political coup. They ousted Biden without a single vote cast in a primary — by the same people who spent years lecturing America about “sacred democracy.”

Now Tapper is trying to sell a book, claiming it was a big misunderstanding and the media was duped like everyone else.

The truth is, everything that Democrats have sold us since Super Tuesday 2020 has been a demonic lie in a battle for the soul of our country — the last bastion of Christendom and Western civilization remaining on the planet.

Like the Greatest Generation facing down fascism nearly a century ago, we now face an enemy that wears a smile, holds a press pass, and calls itself your savior. But the agenda is dark, and the stakes are eternal.

How else do you explain a Biden shadow presidency that looks like something out of the rejected final season of “House of Cards”? But that was our reality, and now we must make someone pay for it.

For KBJ And Sotomayor, Leftist Suppression Of Democracy Is Not An ‘Exigent’ Issue

Several weeks ago, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemingly suggested that conservative criticisms of Democrats’ ongoing judicial coup against President Trump amounted to “attacks on our democracy.” Not even a month later, the junior justice is effectively endorsing real leftist suppression of democracy. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted temporary relief to Maine […]

Is Saudi Arabia really worse than DEI-addled Western states?



Donald Trump’s glowingly successful efforts at building relations with Arab leaders have evoked criticism from neoconservative skeptics. One such example appears in Rich Lowry’s column on “the Trump doctrine,” prominently featured in Friday’s New York Post. Though the Post has relentlessly exposed hypocritical and dishonest attacks on Trump’s domestic policies, its editors never seem quite able to throw off their constricting neoconservative view of foreign affairs.

Lowry quips that while George W. Bush sought to spread democracy everywhere, “Trump wants to spread gleaming high buildings.” While Bush appealed to high ideals, Trump, in his address to the Saudis, called for nothing more than “peace and prosperity.” In a supposedly uninspiring speech, our president praised Riyadh for “becoming not just a seat of government but a major business, cultural, and high-tech capital of the entire world.”

Before we embark on a crusade to export our values, we might first reckon with our internal troubles.

Lowry reminds his readers that Trump delivered these remarks before unworthy monarchs and emirs rather than democratically elected heads of state. “Standing for democratic ideals is an enormous part of America’s appeal around the world,” Lowry writes, “and if we get into competition with China purely over who is richer and can cut more deals, we are kicking away one of our major advantages.”

Allow me to question that assumption.

Are we really ‘democratic’?

It’s not clear why Western “democracies” in their present denatured state should be holding themselves up as a model for other societies. Before we embark on a crusade to export our values, we might first reckon with our internal troubles: the war launched by our media, educators, judges, and government bureaucrats against gender distinctions, white men, and free speech. Moreover, the deep state and its European and Canadian counterparts pose a significant threat to constitutional government — most notably, the judicial campaigns against conservative parties in Europe, particularly Germany, and the open-door immigration policies importing criminal gangs and unassimilable voters. Perhaps, we should address these matters before trying to make others more like us.

Moreover, what qualifies as a “sufficiently democratic” society in the eyes of Lowry and like-minded zealots? Is democracy compatible with gender restrictions on voting? If so, then the United States was not democratic until the passage of the 19th Amendment — or perhaps not until the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which established federal supervision of voting procedures to prevent racial discrimination. Presumably, Lowry would want us to bestow on Arab nations the exact version of democracy that suits him: American democracy in its latest manifestation — perhaps without diversity, equity, and inclusivity mandates.

To his credit, Trump is focused on addressing many of the internal problems I’ve mentioned. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance has called attention to the glaringly undemocratic practices in other members of the “free world.” Trump and Vance are interested in restoring what used to be our political traditions in the West instead of engaging in regime changes elsewhere.

President Trump also understands the benefits of peace and good relations in the Middle East. If he can de-escalate conflict by negotiating with monarchs in Saudi Arabia or parliamentary leaders elsewhere, he will. While neoconservatives may grumble about Trump’s unwillingness to proclaim their preferred ideals, even Democratic politicians have praised his efforts in advancing “peace and prosperity” in the Middle East. Trump also returned from the region with more than $1 trillion in commercial deals — hardly a failure by any measure.

I also fail to see how launching a global democracy crusade will help the United States gain the upper hand in its strategic rivalry with China. Such a mission might win applause from neoconservative think tanks and editorial boards, but it would do little to shift geopolitical realities. European “democracies” may decide to buy their energy from the United States rather than Russia, but the motivation for such a decision would be material interest or fear of Trump’s reprisals rather than membership in some vestigial value community. Even if governments cloaked such decisions in democratic rhetoric, their real motivation would be something other than ideology.

Are democracies more reliable?

This brings us to another one of Lowry’s canonical teachings: “Liberal societies are, as a general matter, more reliably our friends and more reliably achieve prosperity because it is less likely that they will be interrupted by civil war or revolution.” An America run by Kamala Harris and her party might quickly disprove Lowry’s rule about democracy bringing tranquility and prosperity. Constitutional democracies can degenerate into something less palatable, and looking at the parlous state of freedom in some Western countries, I wouldn’t rely any longer on what Lowry considers “reliable.”

While Lowry clearly does not approve of monarchical, theocratic Saudi Arabia, that non-democracy has not had a revolution or civil war for centuries. Is that “reliable” enough?

The party of democracy just stole an election from itself



Who could’ve seen it coming?

Just 101 days into his tenure as the Democratic Party’s youngest vice chairman — and the first “Zoomer” to hold that office — party elites have already declared David Hogg’s election null and void, a complaint that sounds suspiciously like “election fraud.” It’s the latest embarrassment from a spent political party that pales in comparison to President Trump’s incredibly successful first 100 days. If Republicans are wise, they’ll take advantage of the chaos ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Democrats are champions of the system until the system doesn’t work for them, even a single time.

The complaint centers on broken parliamentary procedures — the preferred excuse of weasels and dictators alike to undermine democratic elections — specifically, DNC rules mandating “gender parity” to tip the scales in favor of female candidates running against men.

In other words, DEI did Hogg in.

Hogg, who was elected to help Democrats win back young male voters, complained that “the DNC has pledged to remove me, and this vote has provided an avenue to fast-track that effort.” Party elites, he believes, want to “defend an indefensible status quo.”

The DNC’s procedural revelation came just two days after Hogg blasted his party for driving away young men who “feel like they have to walk on eggshells ... constantly because they’re going to be judged or ostracized or excommunicated.”

Oh, the irony. More importantly, will conservatives capitalize on the blunder?

For years, Democratic politicians have told Americans that elections couldn’t be more trustworthy, that only they could safeguard democracy from MAGA Republicans and that their party represents everyday people over ultra-wealthy special interests.

RELATED: America is no longer a democracy — we're governed by the internet Borg

Photo by CBS Photo Archive/Getty Images

None of that is true, as this latest CCP-style election nullification reminds us.

Democrats routinely meddle with their internal elections to manufacture “victories” for party insiders, voters be damned. Remember the superdelegates in 2016 and 2020? Bernie Sanders sure does — the “oligarchs and billionaires” he complains about cost him the Democratic nomination twice by rigging obscure parliamentary rules against him.

Congressional Democrats haven’t accepted a Republican presidential victory as legitimate since 1988. House Democrats tried to nullify Republican election victories in 2016 and 2024 as illegitimate, yet called allegations of a stolen election in the extremely questionable COVID election results in 2020 “misinformation.”

As for protecting democracy, leftists tried to turn 2024 into a one-party election in many states by removing Donald Trump from the ballot. That was an inside job by D.C. operatives to thwart the will of voters, who delivered Trump a landslide victory anyway.

Don’t forget Democrats’ effort to nullify the Constitution with a “national popular vote” scheme to award all Electoral College votes to whichever candidate wins the most popular votes nationwide. In 2016, that would’ve meant awarding all 538 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton — even in states she lost or didn't bother to visit, like Wisconsin.

Amazingly, Democrats suddenly went mute about the national popular vote after November 2024, with Michigan Democrats quietly abandoning their national popular vote bill mere weeks after Trump won a popular vote majority.

This from a party controlled by a small constellation of ultra-partisan activists, agitators, lobbyists, and political operatives in the Beltway. Recall that Kamala Harris never won a primary vote anywhere — not in two presidential elections.

Massive dark money donors with strong ties to Big Business and Wall Street magnates bankrolled Harris’ campaign from the start. Even in California, she was the ultimate product of one-party machine politics: a mediocre prosecutor who failed upward at every turn by collecting enough party IOUs to earn a political promotion. Her promise was to govern as a figurehead for the faceless deep state cabal that the left no longer tries to hide.

It was only after Harris came into contact with real, flesh-and-blood Americans in places like — shudder — Nevada and Pennsylvania that she fell to pieces. Normal people, it turns out, don’t consider mindless babbling and cackling substitutes for ideas and leadership.

Now, those same special interests are behind the second Trump “resistance” to undermine the agenda most voters voted for.

There’s a common thread here: Democratic politicians and their allies attack the system as “rigged” and “unfair” when they lose. They're champions of the system until the system doesn’t work for them, even a single time; then they reveal themselves for the lying opportunists they've been all along.

Hogg, for all his inanity and gun control bona fides, was honest enough to criticize his party's toxic obeisance to the radical feminists and trans nazis who've made the world's oldest political party repulsive to young men (and most everyone else).

Hogg just proved that democracy cannot be tolerated in the Democratic Party. Dissent will be crushed with extreme prejudice. He’ll shortly be replaced by a gay black woman who pledges to enforce the party line, no questions asked.

Republicans should thank God for this gift. We have an opportunity to further expose and permanently defeat the woke mob while it's distracted by infighting, but that window is quickly closing. If this is how the Democratic Party treats its own “democracy,” America, how will it treat yours?

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Democrat ‘Election Deniers’ Try To Overturn Election Of Their Own Party Vice Chair

For years, Democrats have decried Republicans as “election deniers,” even using the phrase to justify lawfare against then-former President Donald Trump. But as it turns out, when elections don’t go their way suddenly the process is flawed and democracy is negotiable. On Monday, the credentials committee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) voted to overturn […]

The real tyranny? Institutional groupthink disguised as truth



Timothy Snyder’s “On Tyranny” has become a pocket-size gospel for progressives in the age of Trump — a secular catechism of 20 rules to resist looming fascism. It’s pitched not just as a historical analysis but as an urgent survival guide, borrowed from the dark lessons of the 20th century. The message is clear: Authoritarianism is always just one election away, and Donald Trump is its orange-faced harbinger.

Such moral urgency unmoored from historical context tends to collapse into political theater, however. “On Tyranny” is not a serious book. It is an emotive pamphlet that relies less on the actual historical complexities of rising tyranny than on the reader’s willingness to conflate MAGA hats with brownshirts.

Snyder believes a tyrant is always the populist outsider, never the insider who manages democratic decline in a suit and tie.

Such historical flattening is the first and most obvious flaw in Snyder’s argument. He leans heavily on the atrocities of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia to suggest that Trump’s rise follows the same trajectory. But this is not serious analysis — it’s emotional manipulation. It’s one thing to warn against patterns; it’s another to flatten every populist movement into a prequel to genocide.

Snyder, a Yale historian, surely knows better. But “On Tyranny” depends on your feeling like you're living in 1933 — whether or not such historical parallels are actually true. And they’re not.

A democratic mandate

Snyder warns against the rise of a single leader claiming to represent the will of the people and establishing a one-party state — equating the 2016 Republican sweep of the White House and both chambers of Congress to Hitler’s consolidation of the Third Reich. Such a comparison isn’t just blatantly false; it’s a cruel dismissal of the democratic will of the people for merely voting in Republican candidates.

Surely Snyder didn’t accuse Barack Obama of fascist one-party rule when he and the Democrats swept the White House and Congress in 2008. Such electoral outcomes aren’t a harbinger of fascism. No, no! That was a mandate from the American people, democratically spoken, demanding change from the status quo. Voters sent that message loud and clear in 2008 — as well as in 2016 and 2024.

Snyder’s false equivalency counts on fear rather than critical thinking — any semblance of which would entice Democrats to pause for a moment of self-reflection and listen to what the American people are saying through the electoral process. But Snyder’s one-sided alarmism silences the electoral voice — merely because it rallied behind Trump.

Civic theater

Snyder’s advice to citizens reads like a secular sermon: “Defend institutions.” “Stand out.” “Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.” On the surface, it sounds noble — defiant, even. But strip away the aesthetic of resistance, and what’s left is a deeply superficial understanding of civic virtue.

What exactly are we defending when we’re told to “support the press” or “protect truth”? In practice, Snyder’s rules amount to an uncritical loyalty to legacy institutions that have forfeited public trust — media outlets that gaslight, bureaucracies that bloat, and experts who contradict themselves while silencing dismissive voices.

Snyder dismisses the possibility that institutions can rot from within, that the loudest defenders of “truth” are often its gravest opponents. Instead, he offers something simpler: the feeling of resistance while catering to the institutional elites.

The real culprits

The irony of “On Tyranny” is that the tactics Snyder warns against — censorship, moral panic, political conformity — have not come from MAGA rallies but from the very institutions Snyder holds up as guardians of democracy. It wasn’t Trump who quashed dissenting speech on COVID-19 or colluded with social media companies to throttle viewpoints that didn’t conform with the government’s narrative. It was the political elite and their complicit peddlers in the mainstream media and social media companies.

Unfortunately for Snyder’s brand, tyranny doesn’t always wear a red hat. Sometimes it comes in the name of “safety,” or “science,” or “social justice.” Sometimes it cancels you over a social media post, not because you’re dangerous, but because you’re not sufficiently obedient.

If Snyder were genuinely concerned with authoritarianism in all its forms, he might have warned against this progressive impulse to control thought and punish deviation. Instead, he gives it cover — because the real threat, in his mind, is always the populist outsider, never the insider who manages democratic decline in a suit and tie.

Less performance, more courage

Snyder is right about one thing: democracies don’t die overnight. But they do die when fear replaces thought, when virtue becomes branding, and when citizens outsource their moral judgment to bureaucracies and mainstream news.

“On Tyranny” offers the illusion of courage but none of the substance. It is performance art disguised as resistance. To preserve freedom, we should defend institutions and champion truth. But that requires holding corrupt actors in such institutions accountable, whether it be within the federal government or legacy media. That was the democratic mandate communicated loud and clear in 2024, and if Snyder were genuinely concerned about defending democracy, he would listen.