Tag Archives: Democratic Party

Randi Weingarten’s Affordability Problem

Posted on by
1

Randi Weingarten, president of the 1.8-million-member American Federation of Teachers (AFT), was celebrating Democratic electoral victories. Her social media post praised political organizing and the role of labor unions in getting candidates elected.

There was no mention of students, reading, mathematics or educational achievement.

Weingarten’s enthusiasm makes sense. Teachers’ unions collect dues, organize voters, support political candidates and lobby elected officials. Those officials influence school budgets, employment contracts, staffing rules and teacher accountability.

The unions help elect politicians who subsequently make decisions affecting the unions’ members.

Consider four states: Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Florida.

CTNJNYFL
Governor’s partyDDDR
Teachers in unions97.7%97.0%96.6%58.1%

The three northeast Democratic-governed states have nearly universal teachers’ union membership. Republican-governed Florida has substantially less.

What do those unions secure for their members?

Higher Pay and More Teachers

CTNJNYFL
Average teacher salary$89,593$84,974$98,655$56,663
Students per teacher11.911.811.618.4

New York teachers earn approximately 74% more than Florida teachers. New York also employs approximately 59% more teachers relative to its student population.

Some of the salary difference reflects the higher cost of living in the Northeast. But the staffing difference is substantial. New York maintains roughly 86 teachers for every 1,000 students, compared with 54 in Florida. Higher salaries and more teachers per student are attractive benefits for educators.

What Happens When the Students Leave?

Public-school enrollment has declined across much of the Northeast. New York alone lost more than 165,000 students between 2019 and 2024.

One might expect the teaching workforce to decline alongside enrollment.

Five-year changeCTNJNYFL
Student enrollment−2.9%−1.2%−6.1%~0%
Teacher staffing+1.5%+0.7%+0.5%−6.1%

New York lost 165,000 students and ADDED teachers.

Connecticut and New Jersey also increased teaching staff despite declining enrollment. Florida maintained approximately the same student enrollment while reducing teacher staffing by 6.1%.

Teachers’ unions have an obvious interest in preserving teaching positions. For taxpayers, maintaining staffing while enrollment falls can mean paying more per remaining student.

And New York taxpayers are paying considerably more.

Follow the Money

Annual spendingCTNJNYFL
Per student$26,316$27,234$31,918$12,693

New York spends $19,225 more per student every year than Florida, approximately 151% more, due to many more teachers per student and much higher salaries for teachers.

These figures include salaries, benefits, administration, transportation and other operating expenses. They exclude major capital construction and are not adjusted for regional living costs.

One might wonder whether New York is educating a much more challenging student population.

Are the Students Different?

Poverty and English-language proficiency affect educational outcomes. Schools serving disadvantaged students frequently require additional resources.

Student demographicsCTNJNYFL
English-language learners9.4%8.2%9.7%9.5%
Low-income students*41.9%36.1%57.1%~54%

New York and Florida have similar reported percentages of English-language learners and economically disadvantaged students. Meanwhile, New Jersey has lower percentages of both, which may help explain some of its stronger academic performance.

The student populations are hardly identical, but the demographic figures offer little obvious explanation for New York spending two and a half times as much as Florida.

What Do Students Get for the Money?

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) provides standardized mathematics and reading examinations across states, allowing direct comparisons of academic performance.

Here are the 2024 results.

NAEP average scoreCTNJNYFL
4th-grade math239240234243
4th-grade reading219222215218
8th-grade math277282271267
8th-grade reading263266257253

Florida outperforms New York in both fourth-grade subjects, despite spending less than half as much per student. By eighth grade, New York pulls ahead, but only by four points in mathematics and four points in reading. New Jersey leads three of the four categories while spending approximately 15% less per student than New York.

New York spends two and a half times as much as Florida, yet its students score worse in fourth grade and only modestly better in eighth.

The Political Machine Keeps Humming

Teachers’ unions secure higher salaries, more teachers per student and job protections. They help elect politicians who approve the budgets and laws sustaining those benefits.

In New York, students leave, teachers stay, and taxpayers continue funding one of the nation’s most expensive public-school systems, with little corresponding academic advantage.

Weingarten concluded her post by promising to tackle the issues weighing on families, including “affordability.”

Perhaps she should start with the teachers’ unions. Their demands contribute to the school spending and property-tax burdens making life less affordable for the very families she claims to champion.

Sources and data notes: Teacher union membership is from the 2020–21 federal teacher survey, as reported by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Per-pupil spending is from the U.S. Census Bureau, FY2024. Teacher salaries are from the National Education Association, 2024–25. Enrollment and teacher staffing changes are from federal education data for fall 2019–2024. NAEP scores are from the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress. English-language learner percentages are from NCES. Student-teacher ratios refer to full-time-equivalent teachers, not classroom size.

Low-income figures use school-meal eligibility as a proxy and are drawn from different reporting periods. Florida’s approximate figure and full cross-state comparability remain to be verified before publication.

J Street Redefines “Pro-Israel,” Hurting Israel and Dividing American Jews

Posted on by
1

J Street is celebrating its greatest political victory.

The self-described “pro-Israel” organization endorsed more than 200 congressional candidates in the 2026 midterms, raised over $13 million and projects a 98% victory rate. Its president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, declared that J Street had become the center of Democratic politics on Israel.

The election results tell a larger story about how far that center has moved, and the role a progressive Jewish organization has played in legitimizing increasingly hostile positions toward Israel within the Democratic Party.

When Genocide Crossed the Line

In January 2024, J Street withdrew its endorsement of Congressman Jamaal Bowman following growing disagreements over his rhetoric, including accusations that Israel was committing genocide and his praise of controversial anti-Israel commentator Norman Finkelstein. Ben-Ami declared “When the rhetoric, the framing and the approach go too far, that’s where we are going to hold our line.”

No longer.

In November 2025, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib introduced a resolution titled Recognizing the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, calling on the United States to officially recognize that Israel had committed “genocide.” Ten original cosponsors appeared among J Street’s successful 2026 endorsees:

  • Becca Balint — Vermont
  • André Carson — Indiana
  • Greg Casar — Texas
  • Hank Johnson — Georgia
  • Pramila Jayapal — Washington
  • Ro Khanna — California
  • Jim McGovern — Massachusetts
  • Mark Pocan — Wisconsin
  • Delia Ramirez — Illinois
  • Lateefah Simon — California

In less than three years, language that helped cost one politician J Street’s support had become acceptable among its endorsed candidates.

Beyond Genocide

The change extends beyond one accusation.

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal called Israel a “racist state” in 2023. Congressman Ro Khanna and Congresswoman Delia Ramirez were among the politicians who formally sponsored the genocide resolution, while Khanna has also criticized Israeli rule in the West Bank as “apartheid.”

Their congressional votes reveal additional differences over America’s relationship with Israel.

On April 20, 2024, thirty-seven House Democrats voted to provide military assistance to Ukraine while opposing a separate assistance package for Israel. J Street-endorsed politicians André Carson, Greg Casar, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Mark Pocan and Delia Ramirez were among them.

On October 25, 2023, the House passed a resolution condemning Hamas’s October 7 massacre and affirming American support for Israel by a vote of 412–10. Carson and Ramirez voted against it, while Jayapal and Casar merely voted present. Curiously, J Street supported that resolution and subsequently endorsed politicians who declined to vote for it.

The widening range of accepted positions also includes economic boycotts. J Street officially opposes the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement but supports targeted import bans and sanctions involving Jews and Jewish businesses from Judea and Samaria. In September 2026, it welcomed such restrictions and urged similar American measures.

This has been a trend for years. Several endorsed politicians, including Carson, Jayapal and Pocan, voted against a 2019 congressional resolution opposing BDS.

J Street’s endorsements now accommodate accusations of genocide and apartheid, opposition to military assistance and a wider range of positions supporting economic pressure on Israel.

Moving the Political Center

J Street’s endorsements offer something an explicitly anti-Israel organization cannot: political cover from an organization identifying itself as progressive, Jewish and pro-Israel. That validation gives Democratic politicians room to advance positions once considered outside of liberal pro-Israel boundaries.

This unquestionably harms the State of Israel. It has also increasingly created a cleft inside the American Jewish community.

J Street may claim to be “the [new] center of the Democratic Party’s approach to Israel and Palestine,” but it has become a fringe extremist group among pro-Israel Americans.

New York Became a One-Party State. What Did New Yorkers Get in Return?

Posted on by
Reply

New York voters went to the polls on November 3, 2026, and delivered another sweeping victory to the Democratic Party.

Governor Kathy Hochul won reelection. Democrats retained control of both houses of the state legislature, while candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America won additional seats in Congress and Albany.

The Democratic dominance extends to local government. In White Plains, the capital of Westchester County, the mayor and all six Common Council members are Democrats. In the rest of Westchester, Democrats hold 15 of 17 county legislative seats and the county executive’s office. Statewide, Democrats run the largest ten cities, control the governorship, both legislative chambers, both U.S. Senate seats and most of the congressional delegation.

Twenty years ago, New York had competitive two-party government. Today, Democrats dominate virtually every level of government, while democratic socialists increasingly challenge the party establishment.

What has this political transformation delivered, and where will the 2026 election take the state next?

Twenty Years of Political Transformation

In 2006, Republican George Pataki was governor of New York. Republicans controlled the State Senate, Democrats controlled the Assembly, and Michael Bloomberg, elected mayor of New York City as a Republican, was serving his second term.

Divided government required negotiation and compromise. Republicans offered an alternative to Democratic leadership. No longer.

That year, Democrat Eliot Spitzer won the governorship, ending 12 years of Republican control. In 2018, Democrats captured the State Senate, giving the party unified control of state government beginning in 2019.

Another transformation was already underway.

In 2018, democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated Congressman Joe Crowley, one of the most powerful establishment Democrats in Congress. Her victory demonstrated that socialists could defeat entrenched Democrats in districts where winning the party primary effectively guaranteed election.

In 2025, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani defeated former Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary and went on to win the general election.

The 2026 elections extended that transformation. DSA-backed Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier won congressional seats after defeating establishment Democrats in their primaries. Socialist-backed candidates also won additional seats in the State Assembly and Senate.

Political Transformation Became Public Policy

New York’s changing political leadership was accompanied by a substantial shift in government policy.

In 2006, the state’s minimum wage was $6.75 an hour. By 2026, it had reached $17 in New York City, Westchester and Long Island. The state’s highest marginal personal income-tax rate rose from 6.85% to 10.9%, excluding additional New York City income taxes.

New York expanded abortion rights, allowing abortions after 24 weeks to the moment of birth. The state legalized recreational marijuana, eliminated cash bail for many criminal offenses, strengthened tenant protections, expanded paid family leave and adopted ambitious climate mandates which contributed to rising electricity prices. It also imposed additional regulations on employers, landlords and businesses.

These changes were largely enacted by establishment Democrats, not democratic socialists. Yet the DSA’s growing influence suggests that the party’s internal opposition considers two decades of progressive legislation insufficient and wants to expand government’s role further.

Spending More, Learning Less

Public education provides one of the clearest measures of government performance.

New York public schools2005–06Latest
Students enrolled2.82 million2.53 million
Annual spending per student$15,240$31,130
Fourth-grade mathematics score238234
Eighth-grade mathematics score280271
Spending figures compare fiscal 2006 with fiscal 2024 in nominal dollars. Enrollment and academic assessment years differ slightly. Mathematics scores are from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

New York more than doubled annual spending per student, an increase substantially exceeding inflation, while enrollment fell approximately 10% and mathematics performance declined. The state now spends more per student than any other without producing superior academic outcomes.

Higher Costs and Greater Dependence

New York collects more state and local taxes per resident than any other state. Housing remains extraordinarily expensive, and homeownership is increasingly difficult for families facing high property prices, property taxes and living expenses.

The strain is visible in migration statistics.

In 2024, approximately 415,000 New Yorkers moved to other states, while roughly 285,000 Americans moved into New York from elsewhere in the country. The result was a net domestic loss of approximately 130,000 residents.

New York also relies heavily on high-income taxpayers, many of whom have the financial means to relocate. Their departures could place increasing pressure on the state’s ability to finance its commitments.

Those commitments are substantial. In February 2025, approximately 6.9 million New Yorkers, or 35% of the state’s population, were enrolled in Medicaid. Total Medicaid spending reached approximately $115.6 billion in state fiscal year 2025, including federal funding.

Medicaid and school aid have gone from 38.3% of the state’s budget to 50% over the past twenty years. It is going to continue to grow because of the leftward movemovement of government, squeezing out economic development, infrastructure and public safety.

The continued departures of residents and businesses will accelerate the pain.

A Change in Direction or an Acceleration?

The 2026 election did not produce a change in direction. It strengthened a political movement seeking to accelerate the state’s existing left-wing policies.

Higher spending requires greater revenues. Higher taxes and living costs may encourage more residents and businesses with the means to relocate to leave. Those remaining may become increasingly dependent on public assistance, requiring still more government spending.

The political cycle could reinforce the economic one. As the electorate changes, candidates promising expanded public programs may become more influential, while those advocating lower spending and taxes struggle to gain traction.

New York may be entering a political and economic cycle in which disappointing results produce demands for more of the same policies, while the residents most capable of financing them increasingly choose to live elsewhere.

Don’t Be Angry at Chuck Schumer for Being a Political Hack

Posted on by
2

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called Congresswoman Haley Stevens’ endorsement of Republican Mike Rogers in Michigan’s Senate race a “despicable betrayal.” Stevens refused to support Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed after he campaigned with Hasan Piker, a streamer who has spread antisemitic rhetoric, including comparing a heavily Jewish Michigan suburb to a KKK neighborhood.

Antisemitic influencer Hasan Piker campaigning with Abdul El Sayed

Stevens also condemned an antisemitic advertisement produced by Cenk Uygur’s Rebellion PAC that blamed Americans’ grocery bills on Israel and falsely suggested that American taxpayers finance Israeli health care. El-Sayed’s campaign disclaimed responsibility for the ad without condemning its message.

Schumer supported Stevens in the Democratic primary but rallied behind El-Sayed after his victory. Now he attacks Stevens for putting her principles ahead of party loyalty.

Don’t be angry at Schumer. He’s just doing his job – the real job that is not discussed in polite company.

Schumer’s business is electing Democrats, protecting Democratic seats and building a Democratic majority. He tells Jewish voters that he stands with them and New Yorkers that he fights for their interests. But when those interests collide with those of the Democratic Party, his priorities become clear. His loyalty is to his party. Voters are the means by which he keeps it in power.

NY Senator Chuck Schumer

By way of comparison, consider Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.

Weingarten speaks constantly about children and education. But she doesn’t run a children’s advocacy organization but an enormous and powerful teachers union. Her job is to protect teachers, increase their compensation and defend their working conditions. When the interests of teachers and students align, everyone benefits. When they conflict, nobody should be surprised which side she takes.

The problem isn’t that Weingarten advocates for teachers. It’s that she presents their interests as though they are necessarily the interests of children. They are not.

New York City public schools spend roughly $34,700 per student annually, yet only about half of students in grades three through eight demonstrate proficiency in reading and 57% in mathematics. A recent New York Post investigation revealed that 99.6% of students were promoted in the 2024–25 school year, despite enormous gaps in academic achievement.

Teachers find it easier to promote students rather than educate them. Parents receive reassuring report cards while children are denied the skills they need to succeed. Teachers get little pushback and the union protects their failures.

Don’t be angry at Weingarten for protecting incompetent teachers; that’s part of her job. Be angry at her for failing to educate millions of kids and denying them skills for the future.

The same applies to Schumer.

The Democratic Party has increasingly accommodated the Democratic Socialists of America and politicians aligned with its ideology, even as their positions clash with those of traditional Democrats. Schumer’s embrace of El-Sayed illustrates a party establishment willing to tolerate troubling political associations to preserve its coalition.

The handling of President Joe Biden’s decline exposed another failure. Democratic leaders defended his fitness for office while concerns mounted, prioritizing their political interests over a candid accounting of the president’s condition. Only his disastrous 2024 debate made the issue impossible to avoid.

Protecting the party has taken precedence over the nation’s leadership, diminishing public trust and leaving America more vulnerable. Joe Biden, Abdul El Sayed, teachers unions. They are all part of the rot of power and party loyalty over principles and patriotism.

Whatever Haley Stevens other political calculations, she refused to place party loyalty above her objections to El-Sayed’s antisemitic campaign. Schumer called that a betrayal because, from his perspective, it was. A betrayal of HIS job as a political hack.

But betrayal of a political party is not necessarily betrayal of the public.

Schumer’s success in electing Democrats is not the same as making Americans safer and more prosperous. Weingarten’s success in winning better contracts for teachers is not the same as educating children.

There is no question that America becomes weaker when its leaders protect political power rather than confront failure, and when voters reward loyalty instead of demanding results that you care about.

Schumer knows whom he serves. Weingarten knows whom she serves.

The question is whether voters and parents understand that they are not necessarily the ones being served despite the smooth talk and lies they are fed.

Related:

DSA Goes Full Antisemite (July 2024)

Why Are Democrats Asking Jews to Sacrifice Themselves to Save Their Party?

Posted on by
1

What brings together a far-left streamer, a right-wing nationalist and a progressive Democrat running for the United States Senate? Hostility toward Israel and Jews.

Abdul El-Sayed calls his campaign Michigan First. A more fitting slogan would be El-Sayed First or Jews Never.

El-Sayed campaigned alongside Hasan Piker, the influential left-wing streamer who compared heavily Jewish West Bloomfield, Michigan, to a Ku Klux Klan neighborhood. Piker took aim at a Jewish community in a state already shaken by an attack on Temple Israel earlier this year, in which El Sayed dismissed the antisemitism of the attacker saying “hurt people hurt people.”

Two men standing in front of a campaign banner. One man, in a black suit, is speaking passionately with clenched fists, while the other man, in a brown blazer and red tie, looks on attentively.
Hasan Piker stumping with Abdul El Sayed

El-Sayed also featured Tucker Carlson, the right-wing nationalist who has promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories and given a platform to Holocaust revisionism, in campaign advertising attacking Republican Mike Rogers.

El-Sayed received support from Imam Hassan Qazwini, who has claimed Israel created ISIS and praised a Hezbollah leader. Qazwini urged his congregation to vote for El-Sayed as a religious duty.

Cenk Uygur‘s Rebellion PAC produced an advertisement blaming Americans’ economic hardships on support for Israel, recycling the antisemitic conspiracy that Jews and their state are responsible for ordinary people’s suffering.

Different political camps, united by a common target – Jews and the Jewish State – urging voters to elect Abdul El Sayed to be a senator in Michigan.

Not every Democrat was willing to look away.

Michigan Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who endorsed El-Sayed after losing the primary, demanded that he remove the Carlson advertisement. Senator Elissa Slotkin condemned the PAC commercial. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged El-Sayed’s opposition to a Jewish state.

CNN commentator Van Jones called the PAC advertisement anti-Jewish hate, warning of the historical consequences of blaming Jews for society’s problems. Jones refused to choose which minority deserved protection based on the politics of the moment. His standard was the same for both.

Yet Stevens was reportedly asked to stay away from El-Sayed’s campaign events. Supporting the Democratic nominee was apparently insufficient. She was also expected to remain silent.

Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan Democratic Senate primary winner, at a press conference in front of the Spirit of Detroit statue on August 5, 2026.
Split image featuring Abdul El-Sayed on the left, talking, and Haley Stevens on the right, speaking, with a headline about their political dynamics in Michigan.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, herself Jewish, went further. Speaking to Jewish Democrats, she invoked a moral obligation to sacrifice the comfort, safety, security and even the future of their own people for the opportunity to save humanity.

Who gave Democrats the authority to decide that Jews must sacrifice their security for the party’s political ambitions?

Democrats like Senator Chris Murphy have turned the argument upside down, branding criticism of El-Sayed as Islamophobia while failing to confront the antisemitism surrounding his campaign. The candidate becomes the victim, his critics become the bigots, and Jewish Americans are expected to remain silent.

Congresswoman Debbie Dingell urged Democrats not to let the controversy surrounding Hasan Piker divide the party ahead of November. Party unity was apparently more important than confronting the rhetoric that provoked the controversy.

The burden has been reversed. Instead of demanding that El-Sayed answer for the extremists he embraces, Democratic leaders are asking Jewish Americans to explain why they cannot simply accept them. The candidate’s associations become secondary; the Jews who object become the political problem.

Democrats have spent years insisting that politicians are responsible for the extremists they embrace, applying that standard relentlessly to Donald Trump. Why should El-Sayed be exempt?

If a politician embraces / welcomes / ignores the notorious bigots to get elected, why should anyone vote for him? If a political party demands that Jews tolerate antisemitism to secure victory, why should any minority trust that party to defend its rights?

A party that unites around hatred of Jews is not a party worth defending, voting for or belonging to. It is not even a party worth preserving.

If saving democracy requires sacrificing the rights and security of Jews, what exactly is being saved?

Related:

Michigan’s Slide on Israel (April 2021)

Democratic Politicians’ Different Declarations For Victims of Terrorism

Posted on by
1

Three years after Hamas invaded Israel and slaughtered roughly 1,200 people, leading Democrats marked October 7 by remembering the murdered Israelis… but then immediately called out Palestinian Arabs who suffered in the war that they launched while condemning Israel.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) began appropriately. He described “Hamas terrorists intent on destroying Israel” who murdered, kidnapped and raped innocent civilians. Then he turned the anniversary toward Palestinians, calling civilian deaths and the devastation of Gaza “reprehensible,” demanding the “creation of an independent Palestinian state” and condemning Israeli settler violence.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) bemoaning Palestinian deaths, condemning Israeli violence and calling for an Palestinian State – on the anniversary of the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) similarly remembered Hamas’s “heinous terror attack,” the 1,200 murdered and the hostages. Then came the turn: “Three years into the brutality of the war in Gaza,” followed by demands to stop the bombing, deliver aid and secure Palestinian self-determination.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) devoted most of his statement to the massacre and hostages, but his conclusion expanded the October 7 commemoration to “the aid and well-being of the Palestinian people,” Gaza’s devastation, reconstruction and Palestinian statehood.

Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer

Apparently, commemorating a terrorist massacre now requires remembering the people who suffered when the country that was attacked went to war.

Well… only when it comes to the massacre of Jews.

Just four weeks ago, Markey commemorated the 25th anniversary of 9/11. He remembered the nearly 3,000 people murdered, the families in Massachusetts who lost loved ones, America’s resilience and the need to prevent another terrorist attack. He used the anniversary to demand better funding for the TSA.

Afghans and Iraqis never entered his statement.

Jeffries has followed the same convention. His 9/11 statement remembered the 2,977 people murdered by Al Qaeda and then extended the remembrance to first responders who became sick from exposure at Ground Zero. He noted that more FDNY responders had died from 9/11-related diseases than were killed in the attack itself.

Iraqis and Afghans never entered his statement.

Schumer went even further this September. In a lengthy address marking 25 years since 9/11, he remembered the dead, their families, sick first responders, people who developed cancer after working at Ground Zero, the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan and America’s resilience.

Iraqis and Afghans never entered his statement either.

And there were plenty of them to remember.

Brown University’s Costs of War project estimates that more than 940,000 people were killed directly in the major post-9/11 war zones, including more than 432,000 civilians. When indirect deaths from destroyed health systems, infrastructure, food insecurity and other consequences of war are included, Brown estimates 4.5 million to 4.7 million people died. More than 38 million people were displaced. Brown says the number wounded or made ill was higher still.

Yet nobody apparently told Jeffries, Markey or Schumer that a September 11 remembrance had to be balanced by those that Americans killed.

Because they knew that September 11 belongs to the people murdered on September 11. It belongs to the passengers who boarded airplanes that morning, the people who went to work in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the families who never saw them again and the firefighters and police officers who ran toward burning buildings.

There are other days to debate Afghanistan, Iraq, American military policy and the enormous suffering those wars produced. But not the anniversary of the heinous jihadi terrorism.

These leading Democratic politicians know that. But they don’t care to apply the same decency when Jews are slaughtered and raped.

Jews slaughtered in their homes must share their anniversary with an accounting of their country’s subsequent conduct. The young people murdered at a music festival in Israel must make room for Gaza policy. The women sexually assaulted by Hamas terrorists must share the day with discussions of Palestinian statehood. The hostages dragged into Gaza become the introduction to a statement about Palestinian suffering.

These LEADING DEMOCRATS REVERSED THEIR BASIC HUMAN INSTINCT FOR COMPASSION in just a couple of weeks when the victims were Jews.

Why, when the victims are Jews, must the anniversary of their massacre become a day to remember everyone except just them?

ACTION ITEM

Contact Hakeem Jeffries (202) 225-5936 

Contact Chuck Schumer (202) 224-6542

Contact Ed Markey (617) 565-8519

Who Are the Foreign Country Fanatics?

Posted on by
Reply

Is this the Democrats’ brand now—lying to people?

AIPAC isn’t run by Israel. It is run by Americans who support Israel, just as Planned Parenthood is backed by pro abortion people, not aborted fetuses.

Israel isn’t committing genocide. It is preventing one by trying to eliminate Hamas, the genocidal jihadi group that invaded Israel, massacred civilians and seeks Israel’s destruction.

Israel isn’t an apartheid state. It is a multi-ethnic society in which Arabs are citizens, vote and serve throughout society. Meanwhile, Palestinian Arab leaders continue to demand a future Palestinian state devoid of Jews.

And then there is the claim about Americans losing their lives for Israel. Israel has overwhelmingly fought its own wars with its own soldiers. The American military presence inside Israel has historically been tiny compared with the enormous U.S. deployments around the world – about 110 people versus 175,000 around the world.

The money tells a similar story. The United States has spent roughly eight times as much supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia as Israel itself has spent fighting its eight-front war. Yet somehow Israel—not Ukraine, Europe or the dozens of countries where America stations troops—is presented as the foreign country consuming American lives and resources.

But there is something even more revealing about the Democrats.com post.

The entire thrust of the post was Pearson’s attack on Israel. Nothing about jobs. Nothing about housing, education, crime, taxes or the cost of living. Democrats.com chose his obsession with a foreign country as the reason Americans should see him as the future of their party.

And Democrats.com is not an obscure Facebook account.

Its founder and president, Bob Fertik, has spent more than two decades building a massive progressive Democratic communications network. Democrats.com says its network reaches more than 10 million supporters and boasts that “nearly every Democratic state party has rented our emails for nearly every competitive candidate since 2008.” It sells Democratic candidates access to its activists to raise money, recruit volunteers, mobilize supporters and turn out voters.

Fertik’s network has become part of the Democrats’ election-mobilization apparatus. So it matters what Fertik’s Democrats.com chooses to promote as the party’s future.

Pearson accused an American organization of being “the Israeli government’s lobbyist,” accused Israel of genocide and apartheid, and claimed Americans are losing their lives on behalf of Israel. Democrats.com took that anti-Israel statement, put it beneath his photograph and announced that this is the present and future of the Democratic Party.

So who exactly are the foreign-country fanatics?

Pearson is supposedly warning Americans that they are too consumed with the interests of a foreign country. Yet his showcased political message isn’t about Americans at all. It is about Israel. And Democrats.com apparently found that message so important that it used it to define both Pearson and the future of the party.

If Justin Pearson really is the “present and future” of the Democratic Party, the problem is much bigger than Justin Pearson.

The Beginning of the End for the Establishment-led Democratic National Committee

Posted on by
Reply

For a decade, Democratic leaders have sought to preserve control of their party. Each decision made sense in the moment. Together, they have steadily eroded the confidence of both the activist base and, increasingly, the donor class.

The first crack appeared in 2016.

Bernie Sanders inspired millions of Democrats with a vision that challenged the party’s Clinton-era consensus. Yet the Democratic establishment rallied behind Hillary Clinton. Leaked DNC emails and the resignation of Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz convinced many progressives that party insiders—not Democratic voters—were choosing the nominee.

And maybe the DNC’s action could have been excused had Hillary won. But she lost to Donald Trump.

Rather than disappear, the Sanders movement organized.

In 2017, former Sanders organizers founded Justice Democrats with a simple mission: elect a new generation of progressive Democrats and replace incumbents they believed had become too close to corporate donors. The movement was no longer asking for influence. It was organizing for control.

A year later, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated Joe Crowley, one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress and a presumed future Speaker of the House. At the same time, the Democratic Socialists of America expanded from a fringe organization into a national political force.

For years, party leaders dismissed these victories as isolated upsets. They can win in Brooklyn. They can win in Berkeley. But they cannot win statewide.

So the Democratic establishment continue to abuse its base. It lied to the country that President Joe Biden was fit for office long after it was clear he was not. The party leaders then coronated Vice President Kamala Harris to be the party nominee for president without a vote, in what many viewed as an act of treachery.

And now, Michigan has proven that the local alt-left phenomenon is much larger than the DNC pretended.

Representative Haley Stevens was exactly the kind of pragmatic, mainstream Democrat the party once expected to lead its next generation. Her defeat by Abdul El-Sayed, backed by the Democratic Socialists of America, suggests the insurgency has moved beyond city councils and safe House districts. It is now capturing statewide nominations in one of America’s most important swing states, predominantly with the support of young people who are turning out to vote in record figures.

Now even the donors are beginning to revolt.

According to a recent Politico report, major Democratic donors are openly questioning the direction and competence of the Democratic National Committee. Fundraising has weakened. Confidence has faded. One longtime donor summarized the mood in four words: “It’s beyond embarrassing.”

At the same time, the party’s ideological center has moved toward jihadists.

For generations, military support for Israel during wartime against those seeking its destruction was a bipartisan assumption. During Israel’s current multi-front war against Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran itself, most congressional Democrats voted to block or condition additional military assistance. A position that would have been unimaginable when Barack Obama entered office has become increasingly mainstream within today’s Democratic coalition.

Trashing Israel has even become a primary tool to get out young voters on social media.

The struggle inside the Democratic Party is no longer about one primary, one chairman, or one election cycle.

The DNC establishment that repeatedly tried to manage its succession is undergoing a hostile takeover by the far-left. The donor class got the message and is leaving. Only older lifelong Democrats seem blind to the transformation of the party, or unable or unwilling to vote Republican to turn the tide.

Related:

Hamas and the DSA: Ideology + Grassroots Mobilization to Power + Destruction (January 2026)

Racism In The Old and Antisemitism In The Youth (February 2024)

Coalitions Don’t Survive Purity Tests

Posted on by
Reply

One of the more curious developments in American politics is watching mainstream Democrats increasingly tailor their positions to satisfy activists who still refuse to support them.

The answer lies in understanding the difference between a coalition and an ideology.

A coalition exists to win elections. It is broad by design. People disagree on taxes, immigration, foreign policy, and the Middle East, yet work together because they share enough common ground to govern. Coalitions ask one question: Can we work together despite our differences?

An ideological movement asks a different question: Do you believe what we believe?

That distinction changes everything.

Purity tests are not an accident of ideological movements; they are their natural consequence. If your goal is to advance a comprehensive worldview, disagreement is no longer just a different opinion but evidence that someone has failed the test.

This helps explain the relationship between the Democratic Party and organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America. The Democratic Party is trying to hold together one of the broadest electoral coalitions in America. The DSA is advancing an ideology. It has shown little hesitation about opposing Democratic incumbents who fail its litmus tests, whether on capitalism, Israel, policing, or other defining issues.

Israel illustrates the divide clearly. Within a coalition, someone can support Israel’s defensive war while criticizing particular government officials or military actions. Within an ideological movement, those distinctions may not be enough.

That is why the political response of some mainstream Democrats is so puzzling. They often behave as though they are negotiating with another coalition partner. They are not. They are seeking approval from a movement whose purpose is to distinguish believers from non-believers. Incremental concessions rarely earn lasting acceptance. They simply establish a new baseline for the next demand.

The DSA’s own long-term political vision underscores the point. It has argued that America’s two-party system should ultimately be replaced by a multi-party parliamentary democracy. That is an entirely coherent position for an ideological movement. But it also reveals why the tension is so persistent. A movement that seeks its own distinct ideological party will naturally find itself in conflict with a broad coalition whose purpose is to assemble majorities among people who disagree on fundamental questions. The friction is inevitable.

Perhaps the better response for mainstream Democrats is not to seek the DSA endorsement at all.

Every endorsement tells voters something about shared values. If an organization rejects your belief in a market economy, your support for the Jewish State’s continued existence, or your willingness to govern through compromise rather than ideological purity, why should the DSA’s endorsement be considered a prize? A politician should not be embarrassed to say, “We simply have different visions for the country.”

In fact, the willingness to disappoint ideological movements may be one of the clearest signs that a politician still understands the difference between governing and evangelizing.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) is a mainstream Democrats who has not been bullied into positions at odds with his belief

There is a lesson here for the pro-Israel community as well.

Politics rewards participation, not nostalgia. Elected officials respond to the people who organize, communicate with their offices, volunteer, build local networks, and vote. If supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship want their voices heard, they must become a consistently visible part of the political coalition—not merely assume their support will be taken for granted.

Building coalitions by attempting to contort to the demands of extremist ideologues will be a painful exercise to watch. And to live with. It has made many Democrats feel abandoned by their party as it chases the far-left which despises most of the coalition.

Coalitions are built by persuading people who disagree to work together. Ideologies are built by deciding who belongs. The Democratic Party will remain a relevant governing party only if it remembers which one it is.

Related:

Hamas and the DSA: Ideology + Grassroots Mobilization to Power + Destruction (January 2026)

The Revolutionary Theology Has Gone Operational (December 2025)

The Leadership Democrats Didn’t Provide

Posted on by
1

This week’s House debate over Israel’s $3.3 billion in annual military assistance was more than a vote. It was a test of leadership.

Many Democratic members of Congress allowed the debate to become one of competing sympathies: Israel versus American families, Israel versus veterans, Israel versus schools and health care. Some even embraced that framing themselves.

But leadership is not about amplifying the loudest voices in your coalition. It is about explaining difficult truths.

Over the past months, I wrote two essays that made straightforward strategic arguments.

In “Nobody Protests the Military Bases in Germany,” I argued that Americans have long understood military commitments abroad not as charity, but as investments in American security. We maintain troops, aircraft, and bases around the world because we believe confronting threats abroad is less costly than confronting them at home. It runs around $75 billion annually.

In “America’s Greatest and Quietest Military Victory in Nearly a Century,“ I argued that the wars in Israel and Ukraine should be viewed together, not separately. Two American allies have spent the last several years severely weakening two of America’s principal adversaries—Iran and Russia—while requiring virtually no American combat casualties and only a fraction of the cost of wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.

One can disagree with either argument. What is remarkable is how rarely Democratic leaders even attempted to make it.

  • Instead of explaining that military aid is part of a broader American strategy, they allowed it to be portrayed as a gift to a foreign country. And to only one country – Israel.
  • Instead of explaining that weakening Russia and Iran advances American interests, they permitted the conversation to revolve almost entirely around domestic tradeoffs. Only relative to Israel.
  • Instead of educating their constituents about seventy-five years of American global defense strategy, they surrendered the debate to slogans about “blank checks.” Specifically to the Jewish State.

Leadership requires more than counting votes. It requires helping citizens understand why America stations forces overseas, why it supports allies under attack, why it spends money beyond its borders, and why deterrence is almost always less expensive than war.

That conversation becomes even more important when the facts are uncomfortable.

  • The United States has committed far more aid to Ukraine than to Israel. Over eight times as much.
  • The wars involving Ukraine and Russia have produced far greater casualties than the war in Gaza. As much as eight times as much.
  • It spends vastly more each year defending allies through bases and military deployments across Europe and Asia. About 18 times as much.

Yet Israel alone has become the symbol of America’s supposedly misplaced priorities.

Statesmanship is not measured by how well elected officials echo the passions of the moment. It is measured by whether they are willing to explain complex realities even when doing so is politically difficult.

This week’s vote exposed more than a divide over Israel.

It exposed a failure to teach. A failure to lead. And a willingness to lean into vile antisemitic tropes.