Smug Obama speechwriter provides damning reminder of Democrats' intolerance for conservatives, vax-refusers



There is an editorial genre kept alive at liberal publications around the country that is focused on questions about what to do with conservative kin and how best to prevent family members from similarly adopting viewpoints at odds with leftist values.

The HuffPost, for instance, published a long-winded essay from a stereotypical Bluesky progressive about whether she should cut her "right-wing, Trump-loving in-laws out of [her] kids' lives."

New York magazine ran an essay last year from a mother of white boys expressing terror over their potential slide to the right and over "having a flesh-and-blood oppressor-in-training eating [her] spaghetti and meatballs."

The Delaware News Journal published an open letter in December in which the former president of the Delaware teachers' union defended the decision to ditch Trump-supporting family members, claiming that "it comes from a deep sense of betrayal, a need to preserve our mental and emotional well-being, and the refusal to stay silent in the face of harm."

Obama speechwriter David Litt recently contributed to the genre with a piece in the New York Times titled "Is It Time to Stop Snubbing Your Right-Wing Family?"

Litt ultimately answered yes, that "keeping the door open to unlikely friendship isn't a betrayal of principles — it's an affirmation of them."

RELATED: CDC knew the COVID jab was dangerous — and pushed it anyway

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

However, prior to signaling his beneficence, Litt provided Times readers with a reminder both of the elitism that has helped the Democratic Party alienate much of the electorate and of Democrats' chronic abuse of those who failed to fall in line during the pandemic.

At the outset, Obama's former speechwriter noted that he "felt a civic duty to be rude" to his wife's younger brother.

"He lifted weights to death metal; I jogged to Sondheim. I was one of President Barack Obama's speechwriters and had an Ivy League degree; he was a huge Joe Rogan fan and went on to get his electrician's license," wrote Litt.

Although the speechwriter did not dwell on these differences, they appear to fit thematically with voters' understanding reflected in a poll recently conducted by the Democratic super PAC Unite the Country — namely that the Democratic Party is "out of touch," "woke," and "weak."

According to Litt, the imagined chasm between him and his conservative brother-in-law grew during the pandemic, particularly when the in-law refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine — a decision that various studies and recent warnings from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have vindicated, especially when it comes to healthy men.

'It felt like he was tearing up the social contract that, until that point, I'd imagined we shared.'

The Ivy League Democrat admitted that had the man "been a friend rather than a family member, I probably would have cut off contact completely."

Although Litt did not end up cutting off his brother-in-law, he indicated that he was for a period of time strategically unfriendly, claiming that such treatment of the unvaccinated "felt like the right thing to do" — a tactic then advocated in the pages of USA Today.

Democrats at the time were apparently willing to go far beyond unfriendliness in their efforts to bring the unvaccinated to heel.

In a Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of 1,016 likely voters conducted in January 2022, pollsters asked, "Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a proposal to limit the spread of the coronavirus by having federal or state governments require that citizens temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine?"

Whereas 71% of all voters — and 84% of Republicans — signaled opposition to throwing the unvaccinated in quarantine camps, 45% of Democrats said they strongly or somewhat favored the proposal.

According to the same poll, 48% of Democrats supported federal or state governments fining or imprisoning Americans who questioned the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines on social media, TV, radio, or in digital publications.

The same month that nearly half of polled Democrats expressed a desire to see their fellow citizens locked up for wrongthink or tossed into camps for avoiding an experimental vaccine, the Los Angeles Times ran a piece suggesting it was "not necessarily the wrong reaction" to "celebrate or exult in the deaths of vaccine opponents."

"Turning down a vaccine during a pandemic seemed like a rejection of science and self-preservation," wrote Litt. "It felt like he was tearing up the social contract that, until that point, I'd imagined we shared."

RELATED: Polling reveals: Whatever Democrats are doing, it ain't working

Photo by Jim Vondruska/Getty Images

While certain that conservatives will continue to be shunned over the MAGA agenda — in particular over President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown and over Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s reform of the medical establishment — Litt questioned the efficacy of Democrat cancel culture, suggesting that "it's counterproductive."

In what might be the most telling sentence in the piece, Obama's Democratic speechwriter characterized as "radical" the notion that individuals can like each other despite disapproving of each other's political choices.

More in Common, a research outfit that studies social division, noted in a 2019 study concerning the root causes of political polarization that "Americans have a deeply distorted understanding of each other. We call this America's 'Perception Gap.'"

According to More in Common, Democrats have a much wider perception gap, "likely because they have fewer Republican friends." The likelihood of Democrats reporting most of their friends sharing the same political beliefs increases depending on their level of educational attainment, whereas the likelihood remains flat for Republicans.

Although he claimed shunning family with opposing views wasn't worthwhile, Litt made sure to indicate that ostracizing strangers was still okay, claiming he'd avoid White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on account of his supposed "odiousness."

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

Global elites think you’re too stupid for soda and beer



The latest wheeze from global public health elites? Jack up taxes on tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks, and processed food by 50% to raise $3.7 trillion in new revenue. They call it “health policy.” In plain English, it’s government-sanctioned theft.

This isn’t about curing disease. It’s about expanding state power. These so-called health taxes, pushed by academic ideologues and international bureaucrats, are little more than economic punishment disguised as progress. They won’t meaningfully reduce illness, but they’ll absolutely hit working people the hardest.

Sin taxes don’t foster well-being — they weaponize economic pain against the people who can least afford it.

The new push for massive taxes on soda, smokes, beer, and snacks is social engineering with a hefty price tag. The goal isn’t better health so much as behavioral compliance. And who pays for it? Not corporations. Not policymakers. Regular people. Especially those already stretched thin.

The promise of $3.7 trillion in new revenue tells you everything you need to know. This is about cash, not caring. You’re not going to fix the obesity crisis by making a Coke cost $4. You’re just making life worse for the guy who wants a cold drink after work.

These aren’t just products. They’re small pleasures — a beer at dinner, a smoke on break, a soda on a hot afternoon. Legal, affordable, familiar. Stripping them from people’s lives in the name of “health” doesn’t uplift anyone. It makes life more miserable.

And this plan doesn’t educate or empower. It punishes. It uses taxes to bludgeon people into compliance. That’s not public health — that’s moral authoritarianism.

Proponents claim that higher prices discourage consumption, especially among young people. But that’s not smart policy — it’s an admission that the entire strategy relies on pricing people out of their own choices.

That’s not a sign of sound policy; it’s a confession that the aim is to price people out of their own choices. It’s hard not to see this as profoundly elitist. A worldview in which an ignorant public must be nudged, coerced, and taxed into making decisions deemed acceptable by a distant class of arrogant policymakers.

Sin taxes don’t foster well-being — they weaponize economic pain against the people who can least afford it. The more someone spends on a drink or a cigarette, the less they can spend on rent, groceries, or gas. In the U.K., economists found that sin taxes cost low-income families up to 10 times more than they cost the wealthy. That holds true in the United States as well. These are regressive by design.

History offers a warning. Prohibition didn’t end drinking — it empowered criminals. Today, in places like Australia, black markets for vapes and other restricted products are booming. When governments overregulate, people continue to consume. They just go underground, and quality, safety, and accountability go with them.

Public health bureaucrats love to talk about the “commercial determinants of health,” blaming industry for every social ill. But they ignore the personal determinants that matter even more: freedom, dignity, and the right to make informed decisions.

RELATED: Cigarettes and beer: The heady perfume that transports me to my childhood

guruXOOX via iStock/Getty Images

People already know the risks of smoking, drinking, and sugar consumption. They’ve seen the labels and heard the warnings for years. They don’t need lectures from bureaucrats, government ministers, or international agencies. What they need is respect — and the freedom to live as they choose.

These new tax schemes don’t offer support or alternatives. They rely on coercion, not persuasion. The state becomes the enforcer, not the helper. It’s a government model that punishes pleasure and equates restriction with virtue.

The sinister core of this health tax agenda lies in its relentless condescension. It assumes people are too stupid, too reckless, or too addicted to choose what’s best for themselves, and so government must intervene forcefully and repeatedly.

This is control, not compassionate governance.

A better path exists — one rooted in harm reduction, not prohibition. Encourage low-sugar drink options. Expand access to safer nicotine alternatives. Support moderate alcohol consumption. Respect the people you’re trying to help.

If public health advocates truly want to improve outcomes, they should abandon these regressive, punitive proposals. They should promote innovation, not punishment. Education, not enforcement.

Because real public health doesn’t treat people like problems to be managed. It treats them like citizens — free to live, choose, and thrive.

Critics blast liberal reporter for seizing upon hurricane devastation to belittle North Carolinians' beliefs



The Guardian, a leftist publication based in the U.K., is facing criticism over a Sunday article that seized upon the devastation wrought in North Carolina by Hurricane Helene as an opportunity to belittle locals' beliefs, attack President Donald Trump, and push a climate alarmist agenda.

The article was penned by the Guardian's "senior climate justice reporter" Nina Lakhani — a British national who previously suggested that nTrump was a terrorist and a fascist; pushed the Russian collusion hoax; claimed that America's border wall created "environmental and cultural scars"; advocated for banning white men from positions of power; and called the British monarchy a "white supremacist institution."

After insinuating that Trump and Elon Musk were to blame for delayed disaster relief, the Guardian reporter expressed concern that in her travels through Buncombe County, North Carolina, "the climate crisis was largely absent from people's thoughts" in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene.

Resident Twila Little Brave, for instance, told the Guardian about her struggles in the wake of the hurricane, her gratitude about being alive, and how the efforts of her community, not her government, helped her survived the ordeal.

Sharon Jarvis, a 59-year-old woman who lives on a mountain slope on the outskirts of the community, criticized the Biden administration's disaster relief or lack thereof and noted that Christian relief groups, local churches, and other volunteer or nonprofit groups — not the government — stepped into the breach to help.

David Crowder, the pastor at a Barnardsville Baptist church, discussed tough living conditions along with potential threats to local pride and the storm's transformation of the landscape.

Since Brave, Jarvis, and Crowder failed to furnish Lakhani with the talking points the foreign reporter needed for her preferred narrative, Lakhani clumsily shoehorned them into the piece herself with the help of fellow travelers.

'We've failed to communicate this in a way that reaches some of the most vulnerable people.'

Lakhani insinuated that Brave and others who "have found comfort from attributing Helene to God's will" were ignoramuses, noting that "the science is clear: the intensity of the wind and rain during Helene was supercharged by the climate crisis, and the frequency and severity of such storms will increase as the planet continues to warm — driven by the world's dependence on the burning of fossil fuels."

While dismissive of locals' religious beliefs, Lakhani appeared more than willing to accept as gospel truth an assertion from Thomas Karl, the former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information, that might rely on misleading and inaccurate claims.

Lakhani shared Karl's belief that "these events will become more intense and stronger. But somehow we've failed to communicate this in a way that reaches some of the most vulnerable people, while they're getting false information from places they trust."

The government watchdog group Protect the Public's Trust noted in a complaint last year that the NOAA's Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters tracking project relies on economic data and cannot as a consequence "distinguish the effect of climate change as a factor on disaster losses from the effect of human factors like increases in the vulnerability and exposure of people and wealth to disaster damages due to population and economic growth."

'This is a vile, mean-spirited article.'

The so-called Billions Project not only has been been cited in over 1,200 articles but has been characterized by the U.S. Global Change Research Program as a "climate change indicator" and had its data cited in 2023 as evidence that "extreme events are becoming more frequent and severe" in the same federal program's "Fifth National Climate Assessment."

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. noted in a study published June in the Springer Nature journal npj Natural Hazards:

NOAA incorrectly claims that for some types of extreme weather, the dataset demonstrates detection and attribution of changes on climate timescales. Similarly flawed are NOAA's claims that increasing annual counts of billion dollar disasters are in part a consequence of human caused climate change. NOAA's claims to have achieved detection and attribution are not supported by any scientific analysis that it has performed.

Despite outstanding questions about the veracity of claims of intensifying weather, Lakhani framed Karl's statement as the "clear science," then echoed his concern about the germination of alternate viewpoints regarding the storm and broader weather patterns.

Lakhani complained that "false rumors and conspiracy theories," as well as "fossil fuel-friendly" narratives, appear "to resonate among even those directly hit by floods and fires."

When criticizing so-called "disinformation," Lakhani turned to a fellow traveler to shore up her narrative — Sean Buchan, the so-called research director at the leftist censorship outfit Climate Action Against Disinformation.

Buchan appeared to insinuate that rural North Carolinians and other disaster-struck Americans were not smart enough to grasp "climate science" because it is "complicated and nuanced and requires patience." As a result of locals' supposed inability to understand what he and Lakhani believe to be true, Buchan suggested that "propagandists and bad actors will show up in person or online to fill the information vacuum."

Matt Van Swol, a former nuclear scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River National Laboratory, called the Guardian article "absolutely disgusting."

"This is a vile, mean-spirited article from The Guardian," continued Van Swol. "Everything mountain-folk HATE about big city reporters is covered in this article."

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

Californians Drag LA’s Democrat Mayor For Attending African Inauguration While Her City Goes Up In Flames

While Los Angeles locals were fleeing their homes due to destructive wildfires, Bass was attending the inauguration of Ghana's new president.

Sen. Kennedy gives perfect response to Hollywood elitists' attack on Americans: 'Stay deplorable, my friend'



U.S. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) issued a showstopper of a response to coastal elitists' characterization of nonconforming American voters as ignorant. In addition to suggesting that Hollywood script-readers like Alec Baldwin and Sharon Stone are "just goofy," Kennedy intimated that President-elect Donald Trump's landslide victory was partly a response to their brand of denigratory rhetoric.

Prominent Democrats have a track record of belittling and dehumanizing Americans who come between them and power.

President Joe Biden called Trump supporters "garbage." Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called Trump supporters "deplorables" and characterized them further as "irredeemable." Former President Barack Obama complained that working-class voters in Pennsylvania who wouldn't vote for him were "bitter" and that "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

This malicious reflex is not unique to leftist politicians. Every two years, wealthy Hollywood script-readers and the media personalities who support them similarly come out of the woodwork to tell the rest of the country how to vote. When that doesn't work, coastal elitists frequently condemn those who stepped out of line.

After the cast of Marvel's "Avengers" and other celebrities failed to convince the majority of Americans not to make the 45th president their 47th president, the condemnations came rolling in from the likes of Alec Baldwin — once again facing the possibility of a manslaughter charge in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins — and Sharon Stone.

Both script-readers decided to denigrate their fellow Americans during panel discussions this week at the Torino Film Festival in Italy.

Blaze News previously reported that Stone blamed President-elect Donald Trump's landslide victory on American ignorance.

"You know, Italy has seen fascism. Italy has seen these things. You guys, you understand what happens. You have seen this before," said Stone, among the many celebrities who supported Harris' latest failed presidential bid. "My country is in its adolescence. Adolescence is very arrogant. Adolescence thinks it knows everything. Adolescence is naive and ignorant and arrogant. And we are in our ignorant, arrogant adolescence."

'They think they're smarter and more virtuous than the American people.'

Baldwin also concluded that Americans' re-election of the candidate who campaigned on peace, secure borders, healthy living, and the dismantling of the administrative state evidenced their ignorance. Unlike Stone, he suggested further that he and his peers offered the remedy.

"In my country, without going into significant detail, half the people in the country are very unhappy. It's a very difficult time in the United States," said Baldwin. "The only way people can learn what is happening — and film is unique in this way — not only what is happening in the United States but around the world, ... you might not learn from the news."

"Television news in the United States is a business. You have to make money," continued the actor, whose net worth is an estimated $70 million. "Not to go into great detail about that, but there's a hole, a vacuum — there is a gap, if you will, in information for Americans."

"Americans are very uninformed about reality, what's really going on with climate change, Ukraine, Israel, you name it — all the biggest topics in the world. Americans have an appetite for a little bit of information," continued Baldwin. "That vacuum is filled by the film industry. Not just the independent film industry, not just the documentary film industry, which are very important around the world, but by narrative films as well where the filmmakers and the buyers, the studios, and the networks and the streamers are willing to go that way."

When pressed about such remarks as well as the stated desire by a Democratic New York state senator to secede from the union following Trump's win, Sen. Kennedy told Fox News' Sean Hannity, "I think these people are goofy. They have the right to their opinion, but they're just goofy."

"They hate George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head. They think our kids ought to be able to change genders at recess. They carry around Ziploc bags of kale to give themselves energy," said Kennedy. "To me, to each his own. To me, kale tastes like I'd rather be fat."

After teasing leftists, Kennedy got serious: "Now, these people are entitled to their opinion, but they have an unwarranted sense of moral and intellectual superiority. They think they're smarter and more virtuous than the American people. And they think we're not real people, but we were, and we are real people, and in this last election, we got real mad."

Referencing the Americans who gave Trump over 2 million more popular votes than his opponent and an 86-vote advantage in the Electoral College, Kennedy added, "We sent a message, clearly, unequivocally. And my message to all my friends and my enemies in America is: Happy Thanksgiving, and stay deplorable, my friend."

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

Axelrod: 'Upscale,' 'liberal' NC citizens hit by Helene will 'figure out a way to vote.' Trump-backers in area? Not so much.



Former Obama chief strategist David Axelrod predicted that "upscale," "liberal" North Carolina residents hit hard by Hurricane Helene are "probably going to figure out a way to vote" in the presidential election next month — but suggested that those in the same area who would cast ballots for former President Donald Trump likely won't be as resourceful.

Axelrod — a dyed-in-the-wool leftist — made the eye-popping declaration last week on an episode of his "Hacks on Tap" podcast when speaking about swing states like North Carolina and the devastation Helene left behind.

'I’m not sure a bunch of these folks who’ve had their homes and lives destroyed elsewhere in Western North Carolina — in the mountains there — are gonna be as easy to wrangle for the Trump campaign.'

He called the city of Asheville a "blue dot" in Western North Carolina and said that despite the large-scale displacement in the surrounding area due to Helene, voters in Asheville have the smarts to get their votes in for Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

"Those voters in Asheville are — they’re, you know, the kind of voters who will figure out a way to vote," Axelrod said. "You know, they’re upscale, kind of liberal voters, and they’re probably going to figure out a way to vote."

But as for Trump-backers in the area hit hard by Helene? Not so much, apparently.

"I’m not sure a bunch of these folks who’ve had their homes and lives destroyed elsewhere in western North Carolina — in the mountains there — are gonna be as easy to wrangle for the Trump campaign," Axelrod said.

He added, "I don’t know how that’s all going to play out, but it’s an unpredictable element in North Carolina that has made it maybe a little more interesting" in the run-up to the election.

Axelrod also said that "northern-tier battleground states other than Wisconsin are scary" for Democrats and that "you can't count on them." He added that Harris "needs to find an insurance policy" and a "second act" as the campaign races to the finish line.

How are observers reacting to Axelrod's words?

Fox News pointed out some prominent X users who took issue with Axelrod’s statements:

  • OutKick.com founder Clay Travis wrote, "On his podcast @davidaxelrod says Democrat voters in Asheville, North Carolina are smarter, wealthier and will still show up to vote for Kamala while he thinks Trump voters won’t. This is why Kamala and Biden aren’t helping, they benefit from the disaster."
  • Mollie Hemingway, editor-in-chief of the Federalist, added, "I fear that Axelrod's point is why Harris and Biden are letting these people drown."
  • Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce wondered, "Did ya know that famous Democrat operative David Axelrod figures city Democrats are smarter and more resourceful and will figure out how to vote whereas the dumb Trump deplorables up in the mountains of NC who just lost everything, won't. Was he on the verge of a Kamala cackle?"

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

Opposition To Trump Is Rooted In Contempt For Ordinary Voters

In Trump, his supporters hear a spirited defense of the hard-working despised and a fearless denouncing of the fashionable despisers.

Report: Kyrsten Sinema is blowing campaign funds on luxurious living while her re-election chances diminish



There are mounting indications that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema's days in the U.S. Senate are numbered. Her major challengers, Republican Kari Lake and Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego, are grossly out-fundraising her, and she appears less than eager to make the deadline for signature collection. The biggest indicator — beyond her apparent reluctance to announce her re-election bid — comes down to her recent spending habits.

Despite raising a paltry $595,00 in the last quarter, the former Green Party activist and critic of "seeing Washington bureaucrats use their hard-earned tax dollars for personal gain" has been rapidly blowing campaign funds on a luxurious lifestyle involving five-star European hotels, lavish getaways to coastal vineyards, and expensive vehicles.

The New York Post reported that Federal Election Commission filings show Sinema spent $796,565 between Oct. 1, 2023, and Dec. 31 on expenses such as luxury hotels, a brand new car, concert tickets and the security detail that follows her around on her adventures.

Sinema threw down $77,000 on a new Chevrolet described in paperwork as a "van," even though she reportedly already bought a $70,000 "security detail vehicle" for herself two years ago. If she loses a re-election bid or doesn't bother to even try, then she will still get to keep the vehicles, assuming they are licensed to her.

According to the Post, Sinema also spent over $3,000 on limos in London and Paris, ostensibly for personal use.

The Daily Beast indicated that Sinema has ignored her own longstanding criticism of "first class air travel," having spent $210,000 in taxpayer funds on private chartered air travel since 2020.

Sinema reportedly stayed in July and October of last year at the five-star Le Roch Hotel & Spa in Paris, which cost her personal political action committee, the "Getting Stuff Done PAC," $7,600. The PAC also fitted the bill for her $2,500 July stay at Madrid's Edition Hotel, a "luxury lifestyle urban five-star resort," reported the Beast.

Sinema's PAC also paid the senator's way through various wineries in California and Oregon.

The Washington Examiner reported that Sinema has $10.6 million remaining in her coffers and some suspect the senator intends to spend as much of it as she can on her way out.

"Look, I have no direct knowledge, but just her actions and fundraising speaks louder than words – this is not a candidate who is running," an anonymous Sinema ally told the Examiner. "As much as I'd like her to run, and I think the people of Arizona are best represented by her, this is not the way you start one of the most politically challenging campaigns of your career."

When asked about her fundraising earlier this week, Sinema told reporters, "Not talking about that at all."

"Why are you wasting your question on that? I want to be clear to all of you: total waste of a question. I'm here to talk about substance," added Sinema.

FEC rules allow for campaigns to fund a candidate's trips if the trips serve a campaigning or fundraising purpose. The Beast noted that Sinema has in recent years added donor meetings to personal trips so that she wouldn't have to open her wallet when traveling to various marathon and triathlon events. Her latest expenditures might amount to more of the same.

Thomas Jones, president of the American Accountability Foundation, told the New York Post, "Sen. Sinema's use of campaign funds for seemingly personal expenses raises serious ethical questions. It also raises overall questions regarding the Senator's judgment."

"Particularly disturbing is the campaign's extravagant spending on security even as leftists like Sinema make Americans less safe by attacking police… This is elitist hypocrisy at its worst," added Jones.

Sinema has not yet filed her statement of interest with the Arizona Secretary of State's Office to begin gathering the 42,303 signatures required by April 8 so that she might appear on the ballot.

A recent poll had Sinema trailing Lake and Gallego both by over 25 points.

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

Survey: Two-Thirds Of Elites Say There’s Too Much Freedom In America

A recent survey found American elites hold startling authoritarian opinions widely divorced from the rest of the American electorate.

The Legacy Dianne Feinstein Left California: Crap And Crime

In the 30 years Feinstein served in the U.S. Senate, California has descended into a decaying third-world country.