The Left Accuses The Right Of Hate To Avoid Debate And Silence Opposition

Conservatives' views on marriage, transgenderism, abortion, race, and more are based on reason, science, economics, and the Bible — not hate.

Charlie Kirk’s Life And Death Show Why We Must Fight To Win

The right of 2025 is significantly different from the right of previous generations — and Charlie Kirk deserves a lot of credit.

I experienced Jimmy Kimmel’s lies firsthand. His suspension is justice.



ABC announced last week that it was indefinitely pulling “Jimmy Kimmel Live.” The network cited his dishonest remarks about MAGA and the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk. Then on Monday, the network reversed itself. Kimmel is expected to return to the air on Tuesday night.

The original decision outraged the left. Activists immediately claimed it was a violation of free speech, pretending Kimmel was a victim of “cancel culture.” The network’s change of heart likely won’t please anyone, except for Kimmel and his staff. The irony? Kimmel himself cheered when others lost their platforms.

I still live with the fallout of his lies. Many others do too. For once, at least, Kimmel faces consequences.

This isn’t a man who deserves sympathy. I know from experience.

How Kimmel targeted me

Five years ago, while working for the California Republican Party, I promoted the party’s legal ballot collection efforts online. That one tweet turned into a smear campaign. Politicians and left-leaning groups smeared and defamed me. My own employers abandoned me.

Media figures amplified the false narrative. None did more damage than Jimmy Kimmel. Days after the controversy began, he ran a segment featuring my full name and photo. He falsely claimed my work was illegal and added a grotesque line suggesting that someone should stuff me into a ballot collection box. The box was too small to fit a person. The implication was obvious.

He wasn’t joking. The segment was a televised incitement that smeared my reputation and put my safety at even greater risk.

Living with the fallout

The consequences came fast. Threats filled my inbox. Law enforcement advised me to leave my apartment and lay low. Police guarded my parents’ home after they were harassed.

When my short-term contract with the California Republican Party ended, I couldn’t find work. Despite my clean record, military service, and two master’s degrees, doors kept closing. They still do. Kimmel wasn’t the only one who defamed me, but his national broadcast magnified the lies and hardened the damage.

Unlike Kimmel, I didn’t have millions in the bank or a network behind me. I was a junior staffer, recently out of the military, scraping by on less than $60,000 a year. His words carried a weight mine never could.

Kimmel’s hypocrisy

In 2023, NFL star Aaron Rodgers joked that Kimmel didn’t want the Epstein client list released. Kimmel threatened to sue him. Yet when Kimmel broadcast falsehoods about me — and encouraged violence against me — no apology ever came.

Kimmel even lectured Rodgers from his monologue: “When I do get something wrong, which happens on rare occasions, you know what I do? I apologize.” That’s an obvious lie. He certainly never apologized to me.

And I’m not the only one. He has encouraged vandalism against Tesla owners and, most recently, pushed the outrageous lie that Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin was a MAGA Republican — a smear made after evidence proved otherwise.

RELATED: The market fired Jimmy Kimmel

Randy Holmes/Disney General Entertainment Content via Getty Images

Why ABC pulled the plug

Contrary to the left-liberal narrative, ABC’s move was not political interference. It was business. Kimmel’s audience had been shrinking for years. Just this month, his ratings fell another 11%. His rant about Kirk’s assassination would only have accelerated the collapse.

Networks have every right to act when a host becomes a liability. The First Amendment does not entitle Jimmy Kimmel to ABC’s airwaves.

Consequences at last

So, in reality, Kimmel’s return to late night may be short-lived. His career decline is his own making. But unlike his targets, he’ll be fine. He will walk away with a $50 million net worth. He’ll find plenty of work again.

I, on the other hand, still live with the fallout of his lies. Many others do too. But for a moment, at least, Kimmel faced consequences. And to borrow a favorite line from his liberal supporters: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

How James Dobson's leap of faith helped reshape Republican politics



Dr. James Dobson left a 14-year career on faculty at the University of Southern California Medical School to embark on a far more speculative quest to combat progressive influences on family formation and the rearing of children.

It was an unusual choice for a man born to a generation that prized security and institutional membership. After decades of successful organization, audience building, book sales, and political influence, Dobson accurately perceived the opportunity before him when he made the leap.

Of all the evangelical attempts to participate in America’s mass media culture, Dobson’s projects may have been the most successful.

But it was more than an opportunity to be successful that Dobson grasped. It was the chance to contribute to the common good, to demonstrate obedience to God, and to speak prophetically to the nation and the world.

Spiritual guide

Dobson was known primarily as an expert on family and the raising of children. His early work made an impact as a kind of counternarrative to the tradition-busting, more permissive views of Dr. Benjamin Spock (not the one from "Star Trek").

His influence, however, grew far beyond the realm of family even as the umbrella organization of the work was and still is called Focus on the Family.

Dobson was also a true spiritual guide and encourager for Americans of all ages. Young people listened to stories encouraging virtue and Christian faithfulness on Focus on the Family’s outstanding "Adventures in Odyssey" series.

Millions of adults listened to the radio broadcast Dobson did with a series of co-hosts. While his broadcasts often focused on advice for raising children or for building a flourishing marriage, he also platformed Christian testimonies and effective Christian advocates and ministries. Being featured on his broadcast could lead to an explosion of interest and support for an organization such as the still-flourishing Summit Ministries.

Of all the evangelical attempts to participate in America’s mass media culture, Dobson’s projects may have been the most successful.

Faith in motion

Someone who preceded Dobson in changing evangelical thought was the missionary turned author and filmmaker Francis Schaeffer.

There is a kind of narrative some Christian academics promote about Schaeffer, which is that he was on the right path until he began to engage in political activism. It is certainly the case that, as Schaeffer aged and experienced more influence, he felt the need to use it for political ends.

A similar narrative is applied to Dobson. After his death, many people demonized him. But others argue that he had the right ideas early on, only later succumbing to the temptation to get involved in politics and the culture war. But I think those narratives about Schaeffer and Dobson are wrong.

Schaeffer wrote mostly about Christian theology and worldview more broadly until 1979, when he made the film and wrote the book "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" in conjunction with C. Everett Koop.

Schaeffer and Koop — a pediatric surgeon who would eventually become the most famous surgeon general in United States history — toured together to promote the film, answering questions from audiences in an effort to appeal to American consciences and stop the killing of unborn children by the millions unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.

There is little question that taking on abortion drew Schaeffer more deeply into American politics and into alliance with Republicans.

Turning point

It certainly didn’t have to be that way.

Schaeffer was hardly a libertarian or someone predominantly concerned with limited government. Instead, he had natural sympathies with workers and was a kind of environmentalist. The life issue drew him further to the right because that was the way the issue evolved. Early on, politicians such as Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, and Jesse Jackson had pro-life sympathies. At the same time, there were plenty of pro-choice Republicans.

But over time, the American political binary did its work.

Ronald Reagan declared forcefully for the pro-life cause even though his own advisers often tried to tamp down his support. Nevertheless, the life issue became a Republican issue. As it did so, it gained purchase with figures like Schaeffer and the previously progressive Richard John Neuhaus, who found himself surprised that commitments to civil rights and opposition to war violence in Vietnam did not translate into determination to protect the unborn.

Dobson also found himself powerfully committed to protecting the child in the womb. That issue, more compellingly and powerfully than any other, drew him into the political fray. Early on, he would make noise about liberal sympathies exhibited at the White House Conference on the Family. But it would be abortion that really pulled Dobson into the political limelight.

Dobson's threat

There was a time when many Republicans considered the pro-life issue to be a liability, as, for example, various Reagan handlers pushed hard to prevent him from centering the life issue in his speeches.

And after hoping desperately that Republican nominees to the Supreme Court in the 1980s and early 1990s would lead to the overturning of Roe, pro-lifers were badly stung by the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision — co-authored by three Republican appointees — that cemented Roe’s status.

The dealmaker knew this was one deal he had to make.

GOP pro-choicers likely hoped that would be the end of the matter. It wasn’t. Battles over Supreme Court nominations continued with ferocity, including the bizarre debacles we witnessed in confirmation hearings for nominees from Robert Bork to Clarence Thomas to Brett Kavanaugh.

Dobson was one of the major reasons the Republican Party did not abandon pro-lifers and relegate the issue to the margins. In the late 1990s, Dobson proved just how serious he was when he threatened to leave the Republican Party and to take as many people with him as possible.

The threat was impossible to ignore and resulted in a decisive shift in political gravity.

When faith leads

The Republican Party became a pro-life party virtually full-stop. Notably, the one Republican star who thought he could safely stay pro-choice was Rudy Giuliani. But he failed, as his 2008 presidential campaign proved. In 2012, Mitt Romney ran as a pro-life candidate, which he didn't do in 1994. And in 2016, even Donald Trump, who had never pronounced himself to be pro-life, made the turn and subsequently won the nomination. The dealmaker knew this was one deal he had to make.

Dobson’s eventual support of Trump in 2016 and beyond is often used as proof that Trump forced conservative evangelicals into a position of deep and unjustifiable compromise. After all, they repeatedly criticized the philandering of then-President Bill Clinton in the 1990s only to look past the alleged same behavior by Trump.

But I think we’re telling the wrong story.

The simple truth is that Dobson helped bend the will of the Republican Party in the direction of opposing abortion reliably and consistently. And when Trump finally declared himself pro-life, it was he — not Dobson — who found himself in a new substantive policy position.

We all know how the story ended. Roe was finally overruled. Abortion returned to the moral and democratic consideration of the American people. And I would argue that Dobson got far more than he gave and with the highest stakes on the line.

People mocked Dobson's hope that Trump had become a kind of “baby Christian,” but it reflected his own desire to believe in the possibility of redemption and a changed life.

Journalists Pounce on Republicans for Noticing Crime

Republicans have done the unthinkable once again by noticing the senseless murder of an attractive young woman in Charlotte, N.C., and using it as an example to counter the Democratic view that crime is good and criminals are the real victims.

The post Journalists Pounce on Republicans for Noticing Crime appeared first on .

The woke party’s favorite costume: Moderation



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

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

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.