Good morning, everyone, I hope this morning’s letter finds you well. As many of you have likely noticed, I have been rather absent lately, and I wanted to give you all an explanation and some context for where the newsletter and podcast are going in the future.
Where Were You?
As some of you may be aware from my video interview with then-challenger Qasim Rashid, I got back into campaign work to support Mr. Rashid in his efforts to challenge Democratic Congressman Bill Foster for the party’s nomination.
During my time with the Qasim campaign, I met many excellent people who demonstrated an intense dedication to fighting for a more just and equitable world. These people reminded me why I got involved in politics in the first place: to help my fellow Americans.
The Last Qasim campaign meeting photo taken with the Qasim team, 2024.
I couldn’t have asked for better colleagues and friends to work with, and not a day goes by that I don’t miss the chance to work with them all again.
Despite all the good work my colleagues and I did, Qasim didn’t receive the nomination, and my time with the campaign has ended. Despite the loss, I can safely say I don’t regret a thing. Those two and half months were some of the most fulfilling months of my life, and I will miss every second of it.
What Does This Mean for The Progressive American?
With my departure from the Qasim campaign, I now have more time to work on the newsletter and podcast. While I am still a graduate student finishing up my final semester, I hope to write at least two articles a week, though I expect to be writing much more. I will be releasing an article today at 2 PM CST about Candace Owens’s recent departure from The Daily Wire with my thoughts.
As for the channel, I expect to continue to do more interviews in the future and, ironically enough, respond to Owens’ criticism of John Stewart’s attacks on pro-Russian propagandist Tucker Carlson.
You can also expect more election coverage from me as the rematch between Trump and Biden kicks into gear. Depending on my access to some journals and the affordability of said access, I may also integrate more scholarly work into my writing in the future.
I want to thank you all for your continued patience and support!
Illinois’ 11th Congressional District Candidate, Qasim Rashid, will be on the show.
Conor J. Kelly
Image by NateTalkstoYou
Good morning everyone!
As many of you know, my video on conservative podcaster Kevin Phares will be out at 2:30 PM CST. Please consider checking it out!
That said, I am pleased to announce that I will be having Democratic congressional candidate and human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid on this Tuesday at 11:00 AM CST.
It has been a little over a month since I joined Qasim’s campaign, and it has been an honest pleasure to work with him and his staff, but more than working with Qasim, I thought it would be nice to let people get to know the candidate before the March 19th election and to show why it is so important for people to get involved in community politics.
With almost three weeks out from the primary, it is especially important for people to know the people running to make real change in their communities. Please consider tuning in live or check out the recording on my channel linked above.
I hope you’re doing well. It’s been a while since I’ve uploaded a video on my channel. This was due to a variety of factors, including health, but now I’m back and I have a new video coming out this Sunday at 2:30 PM CST.
In this video, I respond once again to conservative podcaster Kevin Phares over his partisan-minded coverage of the now infamous interview between Tucker Carlson and alleged war criminal Vladimir Putin.
If you want to check it out, you can find it on my channel linked below.
Trump’s attempts at avoiding a trial over his attempts to stay in power after the 2020 election have floundered after an appeals court unanimously rejected the former president’s arguments for immunity. The case, which Trump is almost certain to take to the Supreme Court, is another addition to a long list of failed lawsuits by the former president to avoid accountability and demonstrates his flawed legal thinking.
We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the panel of three judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”
The ruling comes days before the Supreme Court considers another untested question raised by Trump’s candidacy — whether the former president is an insurrectionist barred by the Constitution from returning to the White House because of his actions around January 6th.”
The court rightfully noted that executive authority, while sometimes broad, is not unlimited. Trump and his lawyers conversely argue that if a president is held to the standard he is being held to, any president can face criminal charges after they leave office. This argument is neither convincing nor impressive. Equality before the law isn’t an undesirable outcome.
Firstly, presidential immunity is not an explicit part of the U.S. Constitution. It is not an enumerated right or power under the articles present within said Constitution. Instead, it has been accepted as a form of long-standing legal tradition by the Justice Department (DOJ). According to DOJ policy, current presidents can’t be prosecuted, and Trump is not the current president of the United States.
Trump is not only accused of defrauding the public but also disenfranchising voters. I would be remiss if I didn’t also mention the two additional charges he faces for obstructing an official proceeding. The severity of January 6th, which serves as the basis for these charges, can’t be ignored. The attacks on the peaceful transfer of power for the highest executive office in the nation at a time of immense political polarization threaten the peace and stability of the republic, and therefore, the case carries even more weight in its importance.
Even when facing the issue of retrospective prosecution, Trump’s arguments fall flat as the former president has promised to prosecute President Biden if he were to reclaim the White House in the coming election. If there were reason to believe that the former Presidents Obama and Bush were not acting in accordance with their view of their official duties, then they would have every reason to face prosecution, but thus far, no evidence has been presented in court to argue for their indictment. Trump can’t say the same because organizing an attempt to hold onto power after losing an election is not an official duty of the president.
Even without the hypocrisy of Trump’s potential retrospective prosecution of President Biden, Trump’s claims of immunity are, at their best, imaginary. While there have been genuine questions about the limitations placed on the judiciary regarding its relationship with the presidency, those limitations don’t suggest absolute immunity from checks by the courts.
There have been cases, such as Mississippi v. Jackson(1867), where judicial authority has been limited. However, in such cases as Jackson, the judiciary has consistently held that they are prohibited from interfering with the president’s “…performance of his official duties.” Nothing in such cases suggests that a former president enjoys such immunity nor that a current president is without limitation.
In the case ofNixon v. United States (1974), then-President Nixon was forced to comply with a subpoena from a grand jury seeking tapes related to Watergate. The Court ruled that while presidents have some executive privilege rights regarding foreign policy and military affairs, they are still subject to the “…fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice.” Even when facing cases likeNixon v. Fitzgerald (1981), the presidential immunity that presents itself the strongest is narrowly tailored to the president’s official duties according to the Constitution, and as I explained above, holding onto power and obstructing a legal proceeding is not a power the president possesses.
Whether Trump likes it or not, he is subject to the rule of law, and no matter how much he appeals to the court of public opinion, that law must stand. He may attempt to delay until election day to avoid prosecution, but if wiser heads prevail and the Supreme Court holds to the rule of law, he will have to argue his innocence on the facts, not on his presumption of immunity.
If you like my work and would like to support me, you can find the donation site through my Kofi account.I really appreciate it.
The New York Times has done it again. This time, comparing nearly the entirety of the Middle East to a kingdom of animals. While there has been a variety of arguments surrounding the Middle East and the ongoing conflicts there—ranging from what to do about Houthi attacks on foreign vessels in the Red Sea to the ongoing calls for a ceasefire in Gaza—few could have been more belligerent and downright prejudiced as the infamous warmonger and columnist Thomas Friedman.
In his piece, “Understanding the Middle East Through the Animal Kingdom,” Friedman demonstrates his irresponsibility as a commentator and unmitigated condescension to the people affected by the views he so flippantly espouses.
Starting, Friedman starts with an introduction that one could only describe as repeating information his audience already understands. He reminds his audience that America is likely to attack Iranian proxy groups for their involvement in an attack in late January, which resulted in the deaths of three American soldiers. He also notes that the Biden administration is attempting to negotiate a recognition of Israel with the Saudi government, something that surprises nobody.
Instead of attempting to analyze or explain why he thinks this collection of already established information is significant now, Friedman instead decides to turn this basic reiteration of information into a comparison to, of all things, Animal Planet.
“The U.S. will probably retaliate against pro-Iranian forces and Iranian agents in the Middle East that Washington believes are responsible for the attack on a U.S. base in Jordan that killed three soldiers on Jan. 28. At the same time, we could get a Gaza cease-fire deal, with an exchange of Israeli hostages held by Hamas for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. And Secretary of State Antony Blinken is going to try to bring to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel an option: normalization with Saudi Arabia in return for a commitment to engage with the Palestinian Authority on a long-term plan for a Palestinian state.
How all of these are going to interact, I do not know. Personally, I sometimes prefer to think about the complex relations between these parties with analogies from the natural world.”
Friedman, deciding to take on the now anthropomorphized reality of his own making, argues that America is “…an old lion” that is “…still the king of the Middle East jungle — more powerful than any single actor.” However, the American lion is increasingly weakened by “…so many scars from so many fights that we just can’t just show up, roar loudly and expect that everyone will do what we want or scamper away.” To Friedman, America was in a position of immense power in the Middle East and still is but is incapable of acting to control its once obedient kingdom adequately.
This thinking is not new to Friedman. Friedman has long treated the Middle East as an inherently American realm to control and influence. In 2003, Friedman appeared on the Charlie Rose show to defend the Iraq War, arguing that certain parts of the Middle East were part of a “terrorism bubble” that needed to be popped. The way to go do that, Friedman painfully argued, was to over to that part of the world and take a very big stick right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble.” Under Friedman’s vision, Americans would be “…going house to house — from Basra to Baghdad — and basically saying… suck. on. this.” That kind of thinking didn’t age well.
Despite the obvious flaws in his thinking, Friedman seemingly hasn’t learned a thing. He continues with this unending desire to control people. Friedman asserts America’s inability to control the region as a kingdom leads to dangerous actors like Iran, which he compares to a “…parasitoid wasp,” taking control and infecting the once properly ruled kingdom with their destructive influence. Using a description by Science Daily of the parasitoid wasp, Friedman argues that Iran is like a parasite-like creature, injecting various countries with its eggs and eating them alive from within, with their parasitic offspring “…bursting out once they have eaten their fill.”
According to Friedman’s strange metaphor, the American lion cannot deal with the parasite and fails to uphold its kingdom. What this means for the lion, Friedman doesn’t say, but he does seem to like his comparison even if it illuminates little and demonstrates his willingness to reduce the humanity of entire groups of people to mere animals with only instinct to guide them. Instead, he continues by comparing Hamas to a “trap-door spider” and Netanyahu to a “…sifaka lemur,” meandering through various warnings without providing any insight into how to react in terms of policy. He finishes his argument with perhaps one of the strangest things I have ever read, saying, “Sometimes I contemplate the Middle East by watching CNN. Other times, I prefer Animal Planet.”
That’s it. Nowhere throughout this meandering piece of 19th-century anthropomorphized paternalism and bigotry does Friedman ever explain or contextualize the history of the people he talks about so derisively. By comparing Iran, and by extension the many nations it influences, as animals and parasites, Friedman not only disregards the basic humanity of the millions of people affected by American foreign policy, but he also ignores how Iran became the way it is today.
Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon are all just prey for the Iranian parasite to consume, and the American lion, through its weakness and age, is no longer able to protect its kingdom. Of course, America isn’t a lion that prowls around its kingdom and fades with age. America’s influence far extends beyond its borders and, in many cases, abuses the influence it has at the expense of the very people that Friedman decided to compare to animals.
From our disastrous involvement in overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953 to our overtly illegal invasion of Iraq, America has acted less like a lion ruling over its kingdom and more like an invader that claims to care about the rules but fails to uphold them when it becomes inconvenient. Anthropomorphizing entire countries obscures that reality.
This kind of rhetoric wasn’t appropriate in the 18th and 19th centuries when it was used to justify imperialist interventions, and it certainly isn’t appropriate for a major newspaper like The New York Times to publish in 2024. If we, as Americans, are to overcome this kind of thinking and create a more humane and just foreign policy apparatus, it must start with acknowledging our responsibility as a nation for creating the environment of which we now complain. Friedman’s piece is another obstacle to a better, more humane world.
If you like my work and would like to support me, you can find the donation site through my Kofi account.I really appreciate it.
The Iowa Caucuses are finally here, with many believing that Trump will take the victory relatively easily. The caucuses are the first of several key events in the parties’ process to determine the nomination for president, but with Trump holding a strong lead in the polls, it could very well determine whether or not his opposition falters or if a more protracted battle is to come.
Many outside and inside Iowa observers have noted that Trump will likely take the nomination. Atlantic Senior Editor and political analyst for CNN, Ronald Brownstein, was so confident that Trump would win earlier this morning that his piece in the Atlantic was titled “The End Is Coming for Trump’s GOP Rivals.” Brownstein has good reasons to be confident. A recent De Moines Register poll found that Trump was the first choice for 48 percent of respondents, with Nikki Haley trailing by nearly thirty points. DeSantis, once the second runner, now trails behind Haley and Trump with only 16 percent of likely GOP caucusgoers.
Trump may be suffering some issues with enthusiasm despite his commanding lead. That same poll shows that while Trump holds strong, he has seen some of his enthusiasm decline. In December last year, Trump was the first choice for 51 percent of Republicans, compared to Haley’s 16 percent in the same month. Now, Trump sits at 48 percent, with Haley gaining four points, possibly from a mix of Trump and DeSantis supporters switching sides.
Screenshot taken by the author on 1.15.2024 of graphic in “Final Iowa poll: Trump maintains dominant lead before caucuses.” The Des Moines Register 1.13.2024 edition. Link here.
Trump has also seen enthusiasm issues regarding loyalty to the MAGA movement, though not necessarily enough to undermine him entirely. Another Des Moines Register poll found that 40 percent of Republican caucusgoers are MAGA supporters. Of the 40 percent that say they are associated with the MAGA movement, 22 percent say they are standard MAGA, and 18 percent say they are “Ultra MAGA.” By contrast, 17 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers say they are “anti-MAGA,” and 6 percent are unsure on the subject. A plurality, 38 percent, say they are neutral on the MAGA movement, a sign that Trump may not be as strong as initially believed.
Screenshot taken by the author on 1.15.2024 of graphic in “Iowa Poll shows most likely Republican caucusgoers aren’t wild about MAGA The Des Moines Register.” 1.15.2024 edition. Link here.
Combine that with the increasingly frigid weather in Iowa, Trump’s momentum may be slowed, though not enough to undermine his chances of victory. The most likely outcome is a Trump victory and more candidates dropping out of the race. The failure of alternative GOP candidates to criticize Trump and present a strong, long-term argument for their respective presidential bids means that, at the moment, Trump is the most likely candidate to win the caucuses and, in all likelihood, the nomination.
If you like my work and would like to support me, I really appreciate it. You can find the donation site through my Kofi account.
Despite DeSantis’ arguments that aid to Ukraine is going to bureaucrats and pensions, the vast majority of aid is military equipment. The financial aid is primarily going to help Ukraine maintain critical services.
Last night’s debate between presidential hopefuls Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis proved to be a mess of complications with little substance, with both candidates seemingly hitting each other as liars and out of touch while doing their best not to insult former president Trump. But one moment in particular demonstrated a strong contrast between Haley and DeSantis: their position on aid to Ukraine. While Haley rightly pointed out the importance of supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression, DeSantis consistently misrepresented the nature of American aid to Ukraine and downright failed to provide a plan for dealing with potential future aggression by said Russian forces. His arguments ignore the basic reality of Ukrainian-American financial relations.
During their debate, DeSantis claimed that the United States was using its money “…to pay salaries for Ukrainian government bureaucrats” and was paying for Ukrainian pensions and doing very little to ensure the well-being of Ukrainians or Americans. If DeSantis’ claims were to be accepted at face value, the public would be misinformed about the nature of Ukrainian aid and under the impression that the U.S. government is simply throwing money at the Ukrainian government without any oversight while leaving Americans by the wayside.
As I explained before in my response to Vivek Ramaswamy, the aid presented to Ukraine is primarily military equipment, not financial or humanitarian. That hasn’t changed, and an updated analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations found that of the $75.6 billion that have been sent to Ukraine from January 2022 to October 31st of 2023, an estimated $46.3 billion or 61 percent was military equipment, with 35 percent being financial and 4 percent being humanitarian. In context, the United States’ defense budget for 2023 was roughly $816 billion, putting the aid to Ukraine at roughly .09 percent of the U.S. defense budget. It is far less than DeSantis thinks.
Screenshot of Graphic Provided by Council on Foreign Relations
Even when accounting for the direct financial aid to Ukraine, DeSantis’ claim about what the money is being used for and how it is being tracked is still misleading, if not outright lying. As CNN’s Jennifer Hansler explained, “The money, which is disbursed through the World Bank, has gone to pay “wages for hospital workers, government employees, and teachers as well as social assistance for the elderly and vulnerable…” This aid is helping Ukraine survive.
The United States Agency for International Development also explained the purpose of direct funding to Ukraine in a press release in February of last year, saying:
“Russia’s assault on the Ukrainian people has severely undercut economic activity and resulted in a deep contraction of the Ukrainian economy by over 30 percent in 2022, drastically reducing essential revenue streams. U.S. direct budget support, combined with assistance provided by other Allies and partners, ensures that the Ukrainian government can continue to carry out core functions and set the foundation for {the} country’s recovery. Ukrainians have proven their resolve, their resilience, and their determination to control their future. Through the delivery of these funds, the United States reaffirms its commitment to the people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against Russia’s aggression.”
The United States Agency for International Development Office of Press Relations, 2023.
We are not throwing away money that we don’t have. We are providing equipment we already possess to protect an ally in a war the Rand Corporation, a nonpartisan foreign policy research organization, has called “the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War Two.” The aid we are providing in Ukraine is working to stabilize a critical ally that is under threat from a kleptocratic state whose leader believes that Ukraine doesn’t have a right to exist. It is necessary and costs us far less than DeSantis’ presentation suggests.
As I explained in my previous response to Ramaswamy, the United States is not “… the largest aid producer to Ukraine as a percentage of GDP, the United States is not even in the top ten countries providing aid …” That was true in August of 2023, and it remains true now. As of writing, the U.S. has declined in its ranking among countries providing aid as a percentage of its 2021 GPD. Where it once ranked twelfth among nations providing aid to Ukraine, the United States now ranks 16th as a matter of its GPD, per the Council on Foreign Relations, with Norway leading where Estonia previously stood.
Note: The U.S. would rank fifteenth if EU institutions were not included in the analysis.
Even if Ukraine gets the $61.4 billion that the Biden administration wants this year, which is not guaranteed thanks to the GOP-controlled House, DeSantis’ view of American aid to Ukraine would still not hold up.
The fact of the matter is that American aid to Ukraine is and always has been primarily military equipment, has been controlled relative to its GDP, and is fundamentally going to the protection of a sovereign state that was attacked in a blatant war of aggression. DeSantis can continue to argue otherwise, but his arguments show that, much like Ramaswamy, he is unfit to be commander in chief.
It has been several years since the attack on the US Capitol, and the narrative from the right surrounding the violent attack has not improved. Even after an extensive investigation by the January 6th Committee and over a thousand arrests of suspected rioters, Republicans continue to downplay the severity of the attack on American democracy. All the while, far-right agitators and neo-Nazis are actively celebrating the attack. This can’t continue, and the right’s disregard for the severity of the attack must be countered.
January 6th rioters and their costs to the public
Despite attempts to downplay the attack on the Capitol, the damage done to our democracy and to the people within the Capitol is very clear. After the rioters were dispersed, five people were dead. Over a hundred officers were injured, and four officers committed suicide. However, it is worth mentioning that the exact cause of each suicide in relation to the attack remains difficult to determine. Simply put, the damage done to the people who were dedicated to the Capitol’s defense is immense and shouldn’t be forgotten.
The harm done by the rioters didn’t stop with the fighting or loss of life. In terms of harm to the taxpayer, rioters have effectively cost the public over $2.7 million due to damages to the Capitol and to Capitol Police alone, according to the Justice Department.
Not to mention the blatant disrespect that the insurrectionists displayed to the center of American legislative power. In one instance, a rioter smeared feces over the walls of the Capitol, and some stole sensitive information from congressional offices, including then-Speaker Pelosi’s office.
The threat posed by January 6th can’t be denied. It is evident in the dangers that rioters themselves posed to the officers who defended the capitol, the senators and representatives, and in the repeated incidents of looting that took place that day. Even with all of the evidence, the GOP continues to live in denial.
The GOP’s Alternative Reality
Trump’s repeated claim that the 2020 election was stolen has been repeatedly debunked. Even Trump’s own administration, through his Attorney General Bill Barr, debunked his lie. The courts who have reviewed Trump’s argument have also rejected his claims multiple times.
Unfortunately, many Americans still believe the lie. When polled in December of 2021, only 39 percent of Republicans said they believed that Biden was legitimately elected. A subsequent Washington Post-University of Maryland Poll conducted in December of 2023 showed that number had dropped to 32 percent. It is beyond unacceptable that after four years and with no evidence provided, over 60 percent of Republicans don’t believe that President Biden was legitimately elected.
While the legitimacy of the Biden campaign’s victory has declined in the eyes of some Americans, most of whom are Republicans, the majority of American respondents believe Biden won fairly. Among Independents, 66 percent believe that Biden won the presidential election fairly. By contrast, 91 percent of Democrats believe Biden won the 2020 election fairly. Self-identified Republicans were the only group with a majority of respondents who didn’t believe Biden won fairly.
Screenshot taken by author on 1.10.2024 of graphic in The Washington Post’s 1.2.2024 edition. Link here: Washington Post
When it comes to January 6th itself, Republican respondents again demonstrate that they live in an alternative reality. While the majority of Americans, 55 percent, believe that the attack on the Capitol was “an attack on democracy that should never be forgotten,” the same can’t be said for Republican respondents. The vast majority of Republicans, roughly 72 percent, say that it is time to move on from the attack. Republicans are not willing to say that January 6th should be forgotten, but they are more than willing to disregard its importance.
Screenshot taken by author on 1.10.2024 of graphic in The Washington Post’s 1.2.2024 edition. Washington Post
As of the publication date of this article, public opinion continues to be divided along party lines. The GOP tends to downplay the severity of the attack despite the general public’s negative views of the assault. As to be expected, few Republicans are willing to say that Trump bears responsibility for the insurrection on January 6th, showing that GOP voters are increasingly washing their hands of the consequences of their party’s rhetoric. The far-right, however, are not making such moves. Instead, they are openly embracing the violence.
Goosestepping on the memory of January 6th
While there has been an attempt to avoid responsibility for the January 6th insurrection among Republicans, neo-Nazis and far-right advocates have leaned into the attack. Infamous neo-Nazi and incel Nick Fuentes recently argued on his show, which was covered by the anti-fascist website satirically named AngryWhiteMen, that people should celebrate the insurrection, arguing that the attack on the Capitol was a “pretty proportionate expression of the frustration of the people” and that the assailants were “entitled to break a f**kin’ window.”
Note: AngryWhiteMen has a policy of not linking to Nick Fuentes and other Nazis’ websites and has clipped the video to provide accurate quotations. I maintain that policy as well.
It is worth noting that Fuentes has a history of violent rhetoric. As RightWingWatch, a progressive organization that monitors right wing extremism, has reported, Fuentes argued for the execution of non-Christians. The Rolling Stone magazine has also reported that he specifically targets Jewish people. He also supports holy war against anyone who doesn’t comply with his interpretation of Christianity. He has also compared himself to Hitler, arguing that the dictator of Nazi Germany was “really f**king cool.” As if praising Hitler is an acceptable thing to do.
Fuentes also pushed back on other right-wingers who have argued that the attack was a false flag by the federal government. Fuentes asserted that “…it’s almost like if you say it’s a fedsurrection, you’re almost conceding that if no feds were involved that it was evil.” To Fuentes, the attack was something to celebrate regardless of whether or not the federal government instigated the riot. To the Illinois Nazi, it was all necessary to rebel for Trump.
“I think that whether that was an element or not, we should celebrate January 6 because finally people said that they had enough. That’s part of the ongoing Trump rebellion. And I think we should be proud of it.”
Nick Fuentes, America First, Jan. 6, 2024
Fuentes’ extremism is gradually working its way into the GOP. His connection to Kanye West allowed him access to Mar-A-Lago in a private dinner with former President Trump, though Trump claimed he didn’t know who Fuentes was then. He has garnered the support of GOP radicals such as representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar, all of whom have a history of extremism rhetoric. Both Greene and Gosar have publicly supported Fuentes on and off despite backlash against Fuentes’ Nazism.
Nor is Fuentes alone in his desire to embrace violence. Former President Trump has also seemingly embraced the violence, refusing to sign an Illinois loyalty oath promising not to overthrow the government. In another incident, Trump warned that if the four trials against him cause him to lose the 2024 election, there would be “bedlam,” and refused to say whether or not he condemned political violence. Witnesses before the January 6th Committee previously reported that Trump refused to interfere or encourage his followers to stop their attack on the Capitol despite pleas by his adult children and advisors.
The Threat of GOP Inaction
The disregard by GOP voters and politicians for the dangers posed by January 6th, combined with the extremism of Trump, Fuentes, and others of their ilk, means that this untenable situation can’t be ignored. While Trump himself downplays or outright refuses to directly address concerns about political violence against the government, he also has seemingly no qualms with having dinner with someone who is overtly inclined to support said violence.
Trump and his supporters may argue that he was ignorant of Fuentes’ identity and purpose, but he seemingly refused to condemn him once he found out. Nor is it likely that he didn’t know Fuentes in any way. Fuentes has been an infamous public figure for years now, and Trump was notorious for watching TV extensively during his presidency when Fuentes was on the rise. He was also a prolific social media user and has consistently demonstrated a strong sympathy for the far-right, failing to condemn the Charlottesville Nazis adequately. The idea that he wouldn’t come across Fuentes and his America First movement is absurd.
Even more than Trump’s association with Fuentes being unnerving, the inroads that far-right violent rhetoric has made into mainstream GOP politics must be answered and stopped. If our republic is going to be effective and peaceful, it can’t tolerate a major party endorsing political violence as an acceptable operating mechanism. If the GOP wants to be the party of responsibility, then they need to start acting like it and address this extremism. If they are going to lecture people about personal responsibility, then they have to uphold that principle by demanding accountability from their leaders
The public must reject the GOP in the presidential election and do everything in its power to ensure that insurrectionist rhetoric and behavior are not rewarded. If Trump is defeated in November, Trump’s usefulness to the GOP may evaporate, and America may finally be able to move past him to a better future.
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) is not running for reelection in the 3rd congressional district in a move that could easily be construed as political opportunism and career protectionism. Instead, she has decided to seek the Republican nomination for Colorado’s 4th congressional district, a far more favorable state than her current residence.
Boebert’s Electoral Troubles
Rep. Boebert has been the subject of immense controversy over the years, including a confrontation with Beto O’Rourke in 2019 over his support for gun buybacks and banning the AR-15. She also heckled President Biden alongside Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) after he mentioned the dangers of burn pits to American soldiers, which have been shown to increase the risk of cancer.
Rather than contain herself, Boebert could be heard screaming, “You put them there—13 of them,” a reference to the thirteen U.S. soldiers who died during the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
This is to say that Rep. Boebert has been consistently seen in a hostile and aggressive light by many Americans, and her current district has seemingly grown tired of her rhetorical style. In 2022, Boebert barely held onto her seat, defeating Democratic candidate Adam Frisch by over 500 votes, taking approximately 50.1 percent compared to Frisch’s 49.9.
Screenshot of 2020 election results by Ballotopedia.
And it seems like Frisch isn’t done with her either, as he is running again to take her seat, raising an estimated $7.7 million compared to Boebert’s $2.4 million as of October 30th, more than three times that of Boebert’s war chest.
Such a difference is significant not only because of its size. Incumbents usually enjoy a decent lead on their opponents, so much so that incumbency can be considered an advantage in and of itself. However, with the rise of Frisch’s campaign in her district, already-established name recognition, and strong fundraising game, it is increasingly clear that the 3rd district wouldn’t be an easy fight to win. That said, her current choice may also backfire on her.
How Not to Make Friends and Influence Republicans
While Boebert has previously been known for angering people across the political system, she has been relatively cautious enough not to anger or jeopardize the electoral chances of her allies, working with the far-right Freedom Caucus. However, her decision to run for the 4th district may change that.
Prior to her running, the race for the 4th congressional district was already complicated by the absence of an incumbent. Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) announced that he would not be running for reelection, removing incumbency as a factor.
The result was predictable, as six candidates sought the GOP’s nomination for the district, which has previously shown strong Republican ties. In 2022, Rep. Buck won the district by over 60 percent of the vote compared to his Democratic opponent’s 36.6 percent.
Rep. Boebert’s entry into the primary comes with a litany of issues, not least of all because she doesn’t currently live in the district. The alleged opportunism and self-interest in Rep. Boebert’s decision could very well serve as a hindrance and a sign that the gun-toting Congresswoman has little interest in a given constituency and is instead more interested in holding public office by any means necessary. This is an argument her Republican opponents are almost certain to make.
CBS News Colorado analyst Dick Wadhams noted this, saying, “She knew she was probably going to lose in the 3rd Congressional District…People don’t like people moving into a district just to run…” Wadhams is not the only one recognizing Rep. Boebert’s vulnerability.
Former state Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg, a candidate for Rep. Buck’s seat, hit Boebert almost immediately with a statement reading:
I look forward to welcoming Lauren to the fourth district and representing her in Congress. I’ve lived, worked, and raised my family here and I’m blessed to have always called Eastern Colorado home. The fourth district is my home, and I’m going to continue to work hard to represent the principled conservative values of everyone who lives here just as I have always done.
Former state Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg in a statement to CBS Colorado, December 29th 2023.
Other candidates have also hit on that note, with State Rep. Richard Holtorf being even more blunt, demanding to know if Rep. Boebert thought voters in the 4th district were “…that stupid.” He further questioned Boebert’s view of her new voters, saying, “Does she think we’re going to be fooled by this trickery?”
This line of attack, which has been repeated by candidates and voters, will likely harm Rep. Boebert’s candidacy as her rhetoric has consistently been anti-establishment. To many other voters, Rep. Boebert was supposed to be anything but a career politician, but the moves she is currently making seem to reek of that very opportunism that she claimed to oppose. By engaging in so-called ‘seat shopping,’ Rep Boebert may have lost her anti-establishment credentials and put her at odds with her fellow Republicans.
Cowardice and Hypocrisy
There is another side to Rep. Boebert’s decision to move out of her district that shouldn’t be forgotten: her unwillingness to face the voters who gave her power. Whether or not Rep. Boebert likes it, the voters decide who gets to represent them, and they have every right to decide that the person they previously elected is insufficient to meet their needs. Regardless of what Rep. Boebert wants, she is not entitled to a seat in Congress or power. It is earned.
Combined with the many scandals that she faced, including the sexually explicit behavior she engaged in at a theater, Rep. Boebert’s decision to move to the 4th district gives off an impression of entitlement. An entitlement to power and entitlement to disregard the principles of moderation that she claims guide her life.
Rep. Boebert’s actions as of late reek of desperation and show a blatant unwillingness to accept that she is not in charge. The people are. Lauren Elizabeth perfectly encapsulated this, saying:
… I’m not sure how much more cowardly it can get than that. It wreaks of desperation. It wreaks of a desire to hold on to power at any cost. This is a woman who knows her family’s situation depends on her maintaining this status, and she’ll do what it takes to keep it.
Frankly, I would love to see her reaction if one of her Democratic peers like AOC or Cori Bush did this. What would she say? How would she respond? I think we all know she wouldn’t hesitate at all to take to social media or television, and point this type of move out for exactly what it is: a desperate desire to retain power.
Lauren Elizabeth, Rep. Lauren Boebert is Switching Congressional Districts, December 28th, 2023
So long as Rep. Boebert carries this decision over her, her career and reputation might as well be in a trash bin. She has abandoned her constituents, undermined an already competitive race in another district, and shown how little she cares for the will of her people. If there is anything to be gleaned from this decision by Rep. Boebert, it is that opportunism comes with a cost. While it is not entirely clear if Rep. Boebert will lose, it is almost certain that her entitlement will cost her, and she deserves every second of this fight.
In an unforced error, presidential candidate and GOP primary challenger to Donald Trump, Nikki Haley, seemingly forgot what caused the Civil War on Wednesday evening. In a town hall in Berlin, New Hampshire, the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations was asked by a voter what she thought caused the Civil War, and instead of giving the correct answer, she seemingly demured in the worst way possible.
Haley’s Terrible Answer
Despite a massive amount of experience in government and a sound mind, former Ambassador Haley failed to address the issue of slavery in the Civil War adequately. In her answer, Haley explained, “I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run…The freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do. What do you think the cause of the Civil War was or argument?”
Her response, of course, resulted in the questioner noting their astonishment that Haley failed to mention slavery. Instead of acknowledging such an important component of America’s deadliest war, Haley seemingly threw the comment away by responding, “What do you want me to say about slavery?”
Such a brazen disregard for the basic facts of the Civil War is not only surprising, it is downright insulting. The historical record has consistently demonstrated that the Civil War was directly tied to and was fought over slavery. Haley has to address that reality.
The Easiest Answer on the Planet
When faced with the cause of the Civil War, one must remember the explicitly stated positions of the Confederate states themselves. As southern states were leaving the Union, many of them explicitly stated that they were leaving the Union because of the North’s anti-slavery position. Georgia’s declaration of secession directly lambasted the North, saying:
For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes.
Georgian Declaration of Secession, 1861.
Nor were they the only ones condemning anti-slavery activity. While the North was not abolitionist, as it was more anti-slavery and moderate at the time, the South was convinced that they had to fight tooth and nail to defend their so-called ‘peculiar institution.’ Mississippi infamously stated in its secession declaration that:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
Mississippi Declaration of Secession, 1861
South Carolina and Texas, along with many other Southern states, were also thoroughly and overtly convinced that slavery was under attack, with South Carolina’s legislature warning that “… the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.” Simply put, slavery was a central component of secession and, therefore, a central component of the Civil War. To say otherwise is nonsense.
So What?
While it is easy to discard this as a fluke, Haley has a strange and disturbing history with Civil War history. In 2019, Haley faced another controversy surrounding her comments about the Confederate battle flag. In an interview with Glenn Beck, Haley claimed that the flag, which was used by white supremacist shooter Dylann Roof, represented “service, sacrifice, and heritage” and that Roof had “hijacked” its meaning.
For one, the flag in question is actually the Confederate battle flag, not the flag of the Confederate government. Its modern usage, outside of the context of the Civil War, has always been racist, as it was used by the infamous Dixiecrats in the election of 1948 as a means to oppose Civil Rights and integration.
It has also been consistently used by pro-Confederate propagandists such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans, all of whom promote the Lost Cause, a pseudohistorical deception that claims that the Civil War was not about slavery. This organization, through almost half a century of indoctrination of American youth, helped pave the way for white supremacy’s return in the South from Reconstruction to the early to mid-20th century.
These organizations were not merely deceiving the public. They were actively involved in promoting racial violence. The United Daughters of the Confederacy explicitly did so through their Lost Cause myth, with one of their main writers promoting the Ku Klux Klan in her book, The Ku Klux Klan or Invisible Empire (1914). The book by Laura Martin Rose praised the “valor” of former confederates and the Klan. Simply put, the flag has been tied to and used for an explicitly violent and racist movement throughout American history.
Former Ambassador Haley’s failure to fully appreciate the importance of the most basic historical factors of the Civil War is an indictment of her character and her bid for the Oval Office. Her history of equivocation, deception, and outright falsehood regarding the Civil War is not merely a failure of her education but is a sign of her grotesque irresponsibility.
Remembering and reiterating the basic reality that the Civil War was about slavery serves as a reminder of the centuries-long violence that was perpetrated against Black people throughout our history and serves as a refutation of the violent ideology that attempted to hide that bloody history. No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, it is beyond unacceptable for anyone to deny or even equivocate about the moral failings of the Confederacy and its successors in the Klan. If Haley wants to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate and a person, she should apologize immediately.
