I usually enjoy David Harsanyi’s critiques of the left. But in a recent column, he drew a distinction I can’t accept. Quoting Rahm Emanuel’s plea for Democrats to rally behind “Build, baby, build!” Harsanyi praised politicians he believes embody a centrist alternative to the party’s radicals: Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Virginia gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, and North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein.
Harsanyi presented these figures as the future of a Democratic Party that might rediscover moderation. He contrasted them with open socialists like New York City's Zohran Mamdani, whom he regards as the party’s worst tendencies made flesh. In his telling, Beshear, Spanberger, Shapiro, and Stein represent a kind of Democratic “loyal opposition” that conservatives should welcome.
Abigail Spanberger shows how the Democratic ‘moderate’ label works: not as a rejection of cultural radicalism but as a smoother delivery system for it.
That picture collapses under scrutiny. On social questions, the supposed moderates fall squarely in line with the party’s most zealous activists. Beshear, though personable and pragmatic on some issues, is an LGBTQ fanatic who promotes woke causes across Kentucky. Spanberger has been a reliable ally of the gender-identity movement and has now gone so far as to support biological men competing in women’s sports. Stein in North Carolina vetoed four separate bills meant to curb DEI excesses and limit radical gender programs in his state.
These aren’t minor disagreements tucked around the edges. They reveal a deeper truth: The “moderates” whom Harsanyi and Fox News commentators now flatter are not moderates at all. They dress the same ideology in calmer rhetoric. Spanberger, the supposed pragmatist, sounds indistinguishable from Tim Walz or Mamdani when she explains her social positions.
So why do some on the right elevate them? Because these Democrats don’t call themselves socialists, don’t chant slogans for Hamas, and don’t traffic in the same racial agitation as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jasmine Crockett, or Omar Fateh. But the distinction is cosmetic. On gender, DEI, and race politics, the so-called moderates embrace the same policies.
This misreading exposes a larger problem on the right. For years, the Republican establishment avoided direct confrontation on cultural issues, preferring to rally donors around national defense, Israel, or deregulation. On marriage and gender, Republicans surrendered the ground years ago. When the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, Conservatism Inc. shrugged. Now, some seem relieved to pretend “moderates” in the Democratic Party represent a saner alternative. They don’t.
And the Democrats know it. Clinton-era strategists at the Third Way think tank now tell their party to tone down the woke jargon and talk more about housing or infrastructure. But Third Way doesn’t advise abandoning cultural radicalism — only camouflaging it. The goal is simple: Keep core constituencies like college-educated white women and black urban voters while soothing independents with bread-and-butter messaging. Beshear, Stein, Spanberger, and the others know their futures depend on that balancing act.
This is where Republicans must stop indulging illusions. They will be forced to fight on this terrain whether they like it or not.
RELATED: Radical left poised to redefine America’s cities
In Virginia, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears — a black conservative who supports Trump’s immigration policy and holds traditional views on marriage and gender — trails Spanberger despite Spanberger’s increasingly open embrace of the left’s cultural program. In Northern Virginia’s suburbs, her positions do not hurt her. They energize her base. The clearer she becomes, the more firmly those voters rally to her side.
That is the lesson Republicans cannot ignore. Spanberger shows how the Democratic “moderate” label works: not as a rejection of cultural radicalism but as a smoother delivery system for it. Sears, to her credit, understands the stakes. She knows she cannot avoid the social questions. If she does, she loses. Her only path forward is to expose Spanberger’s record and force voters to confront it.
What’s happening in Virginia is the same fight Trump is waging nationally — against a cultural left entrenched in the administrative state, NPR, and the universities. These battles connect. They will not fade, and the right cannot win them by pretending “moderates” exist in the Democratic Party.
If Republicans cling to that illusion, they won’t just lose a governorship here or a Senate seat there. They will lose the defining fight over culture, identity, and the moral core of the nation. The Democrats’ so-called moderates are not the antidote to radicalism. They are the mask that allows it to advance.
An Obama judge issued an injunction on Thursday ordering Florida not only to halt the arrival of new detainees to Alligator Alcatraz but to begin dismantling the facility.
The Sunshine State isn't rolling over, and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' office indicated that President Donald Trump's deportation campaign will continue as planned.
After DeSantis tasked state leaders with identifying places for a new detention facility to temporarily house outbound criminal noncitizens, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier made a public pitch in favor of "Alligator Alcatraz" — "an old, virtually abandoned airport facility" in the Everglades that could serve as "the one-stop shop to carry out President Trump's mass deportation agenda."
Uthmeier got his way, confirming in June that the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport would indeed become home to America's first state-run facility for federal immigration detainees — a facility that the Department of Homeland Security told Blaze News would ultimately house up to 5,000 beds for illegal aliens in soft and hardened structures.
Within weeks, the airport's 10,499-foot runway was crowded with tents and unsavory characters set for deportation.
As with virtually all effective initiatives related to the detention and deportation of criminal noncitizens, Alligator Alcatraz's development was challenged by liberal activists.
RELATED: Florida sheriff: Feds are running out of space because we're arresting so many illegal aliens
One of the legal efforts to shut down the camp was launched on June 27 by two environmental groups, Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biological Diversity.
According to the plaintiffs, Alligator Alcatraz was being operated in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental review processes in cases of federal actions that significantly impact the environment — processes the environmentalists claim had not been undertaken.
Florida Division of Emergency Management Deputy Director Keith Pruett pointed out that the environmentalists' concerns were overblown and that the airport was already active, permanently lit — one of the environmentalists concern-mongered about possible light pollution — and home to existing buildings.
The lawsuit further alleged that Florida's involvement in the project through the Florida Division of Emergency Management exceeded the agency's authority and that Miami-Dade County unlawfully permitted the use of the airport as a detention facility.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams made clear in her 82-page order on Thursday that she was persuaded neither by the Trump administration's argument that "the significant national interest in combating unlawful immigration favors allowing Florida to continue the development and use of [the detention camp]" nor by Florida's assertion that the facility was necessary because other facilities are at capacity.
Williams, an Obama appointee, suggested that the perceived need for Alligator Alcatraz "fails to explicate the decision to place the detention camp in the Everglades."
'We're going to continue to do what we need to do to help the Trump administration remove illegal aliens from our country.'
Having ordered a temporary pause weeks earlier, Williams formally barred both the Trump administration and state officials from installing any additional lighting at the facility; undertaking any expansion efforts, including erecting additional tents or buildings; and bringing any new detainees to the site.
Her order allows, however, for modification or repairs to existing facilities if executed for the sole purpose of "increasing safety or mitigating environmental or other risks at the site."
The Obama judge further ordered Florida and the Trump administration to dismantle the temporary fencing, lighting fixtures, generators, and waste receptacles installed to support the project within 60 days.
RELATED: Trump and the left join forces to herd Democrats into a 2028 disaster
"Every Florida governor, every Florida senator, and countless local and national political figures, including presidents, have publicly pledged their unequivocal support for the restoration, conservation, and protection of the Everglades," wrote Williams. "This Order does nothing more than uphold the basic requirements of legislation designed to fulfill those promises."
Friends of the Everglades celebrated the ruling.
Eve Samples, executive director of the group, stated, "This decision sends a clear message that environmental laws must be respected by leaders at the highest levels of our government — and there are consequences for ignoring them."
DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to Blaze News, "This ruling from an activist judge ignores the fact that this land has already been developed for a decade. It is another attempt to prevent the president from fulfilling the American people’s mandate to remove the worst of the worst, including gang members, murderers, pedophiles, terrorists, and rapists, from our country."
"This activist judge doesn’t care about the invasion of our country facilitated by the Biden administration, but the American people do," continued McLaughlin. "We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side.”
Florida has appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
DeSantis told Fox News he knew the "fix was in" and that Williams "was not giving us a fair shake."
"We totally expected an adverse ruling," said DeSantis. "And we also knew we were going to immediately appeal and get that decision stayed. So we will ultimately be successful in this. It's not going to stop our resolve. We're going to continue to do what we need to do to help the Trump administration remove illegal aliens from our country. You know, that's the mandate that they have. So we anticipated this, but I don't think it's going to be insurmountable in the end."
Blaze News has reached out to DeSantis' office for further comment.
While the fate of Alligator Alcatraz is up in the air, DeSantis' office made clear that there's no slowing down the deportation train.
Alex Lanfranconi, DeSantis' communications director, noted, "The deportations will continue until morale improves."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!New York state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic nomination for the mayoral election in New York City on Tuesday night.
Despite being behind in almost every poll, Mamdani beat former New York governor and second-place nominee Andrew Cuomo by around seven points. New York City Comptroller Brad Lander came in third.
Mamdani's election platform included endorsing "LGBTQIA+ protections," "city-owned grocery stores," and "Trump-proofing" New York City. Mamdani is also a Democratic Socialist and has worked on the campaigns of fellow socialists.
'In the words of Nelson Mandela ...'
Mamdani took to his X account after his victory and thanked his voters, quoting late activist and first president of South Africa Nelson Mandela.
"In the words of Nelson Mandela: it always seems impossible until it's done," Mamdani wrote. "My friends, it is done. And you are the ones who did it. I am honored to be your Democratic nominee for the Mayor of New York City," the new Democratic candidate added.
During his acceptance speech, Mamdani told supporters, "Above all, our democracy has been attacked from within ... and when we no longer believe in our democracy, it only becomes easier for people like Donald Trump to convince us of his worth."
Governor Cuomo conceded just after 10:30 p.m. Eastern Time, saying Mamdani "touched young people, and inspired them, and moved them, and got them to come out and vote."
"He really ran a highly impactful campaign," Cuomo told supporters. "I applaud him sincerely for his effort."
Cuomo served as governor for more than 10 years and was leading almost every major poll by double digits coming into the primary. On Election Day, the New York Times reported that of the 10 most recent polls conducted in June, Cuomo led nine of them, with his biggest lead at +19.
One poll from Public Policy Polling had Mamdani at +5, however.
Just days before the primary, Mamdani's office told the New York Post he had received a car-bomb threat, despite not owning a car. Mamdani had allegedly received four voicemails in the last few months calling for his or his family's death, with the latest reportedly calling him a "terrorist piece of s**t."
Mamdani had blamed the right wing for a threatening message in which the caller said he was going to have the candidate "wash his European feet."
RELATED: NYC comptroller locks arms with man to prevent ICE arrest: 'Show me your warrant!'
New York City Comptroller Lander made his own last-minute headlines last week as well. Lander was arrested by federal agents after locking arms with a man facing deportation.
The comptroller yelled, "Show me your warrant! Show me your badge!" as agents attempted to pry him away from a man who had just left a Manhattan courtroom.
In a statement to Blaze News, Dept. of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said Lander was arrested for "impeding a federal officer."
Lander had claimed he was "not obstructing" and was simply "standing right here in the hallway."
New York investigative reporter Oren Levy reacted to Mamdani's victory, telling Blaze News, "Mamdani's win tells you everything about where this city is heading — off a cliff."
Levy continued, "He's anti-Israel, a socialist, wants to replace cops with social workers … basically a checklist for the far-left agenda."
Mamdani recently struggled to answer questions from reporters over criticisms that he supported the phrase "globalize the intifada." After about 20 seconds trying to find his words, Mamdani told reporters that as mayor, he would do his best to eliminate anti-Semitism in New York City.
Reporter Levy has covered issues like crime and illegal immigration from the mayor's office in the past few years and predicted "more crime" and "more chaos" under a potential Mamdani rule.
"It's not over," Levy added. "November's coming. Let's see if New Yorkers wake up by then."
Mamdani still has to face off against Curtis Sliwa, the Guardian Angels founder who won the Republican primary unopposed, and Mayor Eric Adams, who announced in April that he will run as an independent in November's election.
"Our city needs independent leadership that understands working people," Adams wrote on X.
Adams has been mayor of New York City since January 1, 2022.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
In response to widespread rioting and domestic disorder in Los Angeles, President Trump ordered the deployment of National Guard units. More than 700 U.S. Marines from the Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms were also mobilized on Monday to protect federal property around the city.
As expected, critics pounced. They claim Trump’s orders violate American tradition — calling them anti-constitutional, anti-federal, and an authoritarian misuse of executive power. They say Trump is turning the military into a domestic police force.
In moments like this, the republic must defend itself.
But that argument isn’t just wrong — it’s nonsense on stilts.
The U.S. Army Historical Center has published three comprehensive volumes documenting the repeated and lawful use of federal military forces in domestic affairs since the founding of the republic. From the Whiskey Rebellion to civil rights enforcement, history shows that federal troops have long been a constitutional backstop when local authorities fail to maintain order.
Certainly, the use of military forces within U.S. borders must be limited and considered carefully. But the Constitution explicitly grants this authority. Article IV, Section 4 states: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.”
That clause isn’t a suggestion — it’s a command. A republican government exists to safeguard life, liberty, and property. The First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government, but it does not shield acts of arson, looting, or assault. When rioters threaten the public, federal intervention becomes not just permissible but, in this instance, necessary.
Article II empowers the president, as commander in chief of the Army, Navy, and National Guard (when called into federal service), to act decisively against both foreign and domestic threats. That includes quelling insurrections when state leaders fail to uphold public order.
The National Guard is not the “militia” the founders discussed. That distinction was settled with the passage of the Dick Act in 1903, which clarified the Guard’s federal identity in relation to state control. Since then, the Guard has operated under dual federal and state authority — with federal control taking precedence when activated. Once federalized, the National Guard becomes an extension of the U.S. military.
Congress codified this authority in 1807 with the Insurrection Act. It authorizes the president to use military force when ordinary judicial proceedings fail. This provision enabled presidents throughout history to deploy troops against domestic unrest. During the 1950s and ’60s, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy used it to enforce desegregation orders in the South.
In 1992, President George H.W. Bush relied on the same statute to deploy Army and Marine forces alongside the California National Guard during the L.A. riots following the Rodney King trial verdict. That was done without sparking cries of dictatorship.
RELATED: Why Trump had to do what Gavin Newsom refused to do
Those accusing Trump of violating norms by acting over a governor’s objection should revisit 1957. After Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus (D) defied federal orders to desegregate Little Rock Central High School, President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent in the 101st Airborne Division. Democratic Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia decried the move, comparing the troops to Hitler’s storm troopers — a reminder that hysterical analogies are nothing new.
Americans have sought to limit military involvement in domestic life. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was designed to do just that — restrict the use of federal troops in civil law enforcement without explicit authorization. But even that law has historical nuance.
The concept of “posse comitatus” comes from English common law. It refers to the authority of sheriffs to summon local citizens to restore order. In early American history, federal troops often supported U.S. Marshals. They enforced the Fugitive Slave Act, stanched the bleeding in Kansas, and helped capture John Brown at Harpers Ferry.
After the Civil War, the Army played a key role in enforcing Reconstruction and suppressing the Ku Klux Klan under the Force Acts. Southern Democrats opposed this use of federal power. But by the 1870s, even Northern lawmakers grew uneasy when soldiers were ordered to suppress railroad strikes under direction of state and local officials.
The Army eventually welcomed Posse Comitatus. Being placed under local political control compromised military professionalism and exposed troops to partisan misuse. Officers feared that domestic policing would corrupt the armed forces.
I’ve long argued for restraint in using military power within U.S. borders. That principle still matters. But lawlessness, when left unchecked, can and will destroy republican government. And when local leaders fail to act — or worse, encourage disorder — the federal government must step in.
President Trump has both the constitutional and statutory authority to deploy troops in response to the violence unfolding in Los Angeles. Whether he should do so depends on prudence and necessity. But the idea that such action is unprecedented or somehow illegal has no basis in law or history.
If mayors and governors abdicate their duty, Washington must not. The defense of law-abiding citizens cannot hinge on the whims of ideologues or the cowardice of local officials. And in moments like this, the republic must defend itself.
By promoting Medicaid expansion to able-bodied adults, Kasich helped create the problem that the reconciliation bill begins to address.
www.theblaze.com