Yes, Zohran Mamdani is pretty obviously a communist, but what is the difference supposed to be between him, “The Squad,” Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Ro Khanna? There’s not two dimes worth of difference between all of them put together. (Note: There are no videos posted here; just screen shots.)

Culturcidal by John Hawkins

The Complete Insanity of the Democratic Socialist Agenda

John Hawkins
Aug 01, 2026

After years of defending, encouraging, and catering to the most radical people in their base, it has been interesting to see some of the more old-school liberals getting worried about the craziest members of their party starting to acquire some real power.

For example, here’s James Carville, who has sounded increasingly crazy himself in recent years, fretting over lunatic members of the Democratic Socialists taking over their party:


Similarly, Bill Maher has increasingly moved from a radical to something closer to a voice of reason on the Left over the last couple of years:



Other liberals like Rahm Emanuel and Mark Kelly have criticized Democratic Socialists because they think they’re too radical for voters, which is sort of like a Muslim condemning 9/11 not because it was wrong, but because it made Muslims less popular in the West.

The truth of the matter is that liberals have been enthusiastically building this Frankenstein for a long time, and it’s hard to do anything other than roll your eyes when they’re now warning everyone about the monster they created.

Liberals have openly embraced increasingly radical positions for a long time now. Shouting down conservative speakers at universities, supporting threatening anti-Jewish riots on college campuses, and millions of them publicly celebrating a left-winger murdering Charlie Kirk while he spoke to students are just a few examples.

Yes, Zohran Mamdani is pretty obviously a communist, but what is the difference supposed to be between him, “The Squad,” Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Ro Khanna? There’s not two dimes worth of difference between all of them put together.

Kamala Harris and other leading Democrats are publicly promoting the idea of getting rid of the filibuster for legislation, stacking the Supreme Court, and essentially ending America’s time as a Republic in an attempt to create a permanent one-party state like China. Popular left-wing streamers like Hasan Piker and Destiny have openly called for the murder of conservatives. Refusing to deport illegal alien sex offenders, opening the border, getting rid of ICE, calling for violence against Republicans, and declaring that people who disagree with them are literal Nazis are all mainstream liberal positions.

Sanity and common sense left the building a long time ago on the Left, and although Democratic Socialists are arguably even crazier than people like Eric Swalwell, Ilhan Omar, Jasmine Crockett and Tim Walz, there’s really not that much of a difference, and it’s very easy to see all of them working together toward the same goals. In fact, you have to suspect that the Democratic Socialists of America are mostly just saying publicly what liberals have been talking about privately in faculty lounges, congressional staff meetings and think tanks when they think the American public won’t find out about it.

So, what do the Democratic Socialists believe? Well, we could go into quite a bit of detail, but since they’ve gotten some attention lately, they’ve already started sanitizing their agenda for the public and claiming that they don’t believe the things they were saying just a couple of years ago.

That’s why I thought this very current Fox News segment featuring DSA co-Chair Megan Romer talking about what they believe is so useful. It’s someone in a position of authority in the party clearly, unapologetically talking about what they believe. You want to see the agenda of the DSA, which is quickly becoming the agenda of the Democratic Party? Well, here it is:



Let’s take a moment and briefly address these ideas the DSA supports from the segment.

Get rid of the Senate, Presidency and Supreme Court: We’re talking about throwing a Constitution that was put together by men like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington away to create an entirely new system designed by weirdos who’ve never accomplished anything and probably aren’t 100% sure what gender they are today.

Abolish ICE, abolish borders, and give citizenship to anyone in the country illegally: If you don’t have a border, you don’t have a country. If anybody can just waltz into our country and get the benefits of citizenship, why wouldn’t tens or even hundreds of millions of people exploit the system to get welfare or even control our country via proxy votes for another nation?

Defund the Pentagon: What do you think happens to America without a military? I can tell you – you die, your children die, and you lose your country to a nation with a military.

Abolish prisons: If we don’t put criminals in prison, then the only way to protect ourselves from them is to hunt them down and kill them in the streets. Since you wouldn’t go to prison for doing that in a world where prisons had been abolished, it would make even more sense to do that. Still, gunfights at the O.K. Corral in every city and town to get rid of criminals don’t seem like an improvement over our current system.

Government/public ownership of large corporations: Oh yeah, I’m sure if you take every Elon Musk and Jensen Huang out of the picture in American corporations and replace them with the equivalent of Joy Reid and Elliot Page, our entire economy won’t completely implode. We’d be lucky if we could still feed ourselves after 5-to-10 years of that policy.

If you think Democrats won’t vote for this, I hate to disillusion you, but they already are voting for candidates aligned with the DSA all over the state of New York.

Furthermore, the candidates don’t have to call themselves Democratic Socialists because, as we’ve seen over and over and over again, no matter what liberals claim they believe on the campaign trail, they vote for whatever their base wants when they get into office.

Remember Barack Obama claiming he was against gay marriage until he wasn’t? How about Joe Biden promising to be tough on border security? What about the “pro-life” Democrats who wouldn’t support Obamacare because it funded abortions who then caved when it couldn’t pass without them? If Democratic Socialism is proven to be popular with the Left at the ballot box, you’ll see everyone from ancient Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on down enthusiastically embracing this insanity because ultimately, they don’t care about the consequences. Democratic power brokers will enjoy the fruits of their powerful jobs as long as they can, and if it ultimately destroys the country to such a degree that even their gated communities aren’t safe, they’ll just move overseas. It’s not as if they care about what happens to this country.

These are not smart people, and these are not good ideas, but this is what the Left is moving toward right now.

With that in mind, the big questions are, "Can Democrats reform themselves?" "Are the American people as a whole smart enough to want no part of this?" and "Will the Left drag the rest of us down with them if they get to implement some of their suicidally foolish ideas?"

Time will tell.

Flock you!

 

They say Biden was wrong on foreign policy for fifty years. That makes sense, he learned from Harry Truman

I've had this book for over 35 years.  After being at the bottom of the pile it finally made it to the top. ~ N.E.H.

Q.  Do I read books?
A.  Not enough         

AI Overview

A Foreign Policy for Americans, published in 1951 by Senator Robert A. Taft (R-Ohio), outlines a conservative, non-interventionist approach to foreign affairs during the early Cold War. Written as a critique of the internationalist policies of the Truman administration, the book argues that the primary purpose of American foreign policy shoud be to protect the liberty and security of the American people, rather than attempting to reshape the world.

Core Principles

Primary National Interest: Taft asserted that foreign policy must focus on the security and prosperity of the United States, arguing against global altruism or "dollar diplomacy" if it did not serve U.S. interests.Opposition to Unlimited Intervention: He opposed the open-ended commitment of American troops and resources overseas, particularly criticizing the lack of congressional authorization in the Korean War.

Criticism of Executive Power: Taft believed the Truman administration's use of military power without a formal declaration of war from Congress undermined the Constitution.

Anti-Communism with Limits: While opposed to Soviet expansion, Taft preferred economic aid over massive military overcommitments to prevent the spread of communism.

Key Recommendations

Powerful Defense Forces: Taft advocated for a strong U.S. military, particularly in the air and on the sea, rather than relying on large, permanent standing ground forces in foreign countries.

Strategic Aid: He supported providing arms and economic aid to countries willing to fight against Communist infiltration, rather than fighting those battles primarily with American soldiers.

Limited Troop Commitments: He was cautious about placing troops in Europe, eventually accepting only a limited presence (six divisions) for defense rather than occupation.

Taft's philosophy, often referred to as a "new kind" of isolationism by critics, was rooted in a deep suspicion of foreign entanglements and a preference for maintaining American sovereignty and constitutional checks on power.

WE DON'T KNOW HIS NAME, BUT HE WAS WEARING A COWBOY HAT (Updated on the hero.)

The Men Who Ran Toward the Gunfire

Saturday afternoon an armed man walked into the parking lot of an In-N-Out Burger in Twin Falls, Idaho, and began shooting people with what witnesses describe as an AR-style rifle.

Three people were killed.  Others were wounded.

Then, according to multiple witnesses, something happened that almost never becomes the headline.  A man wearing a cowboy hat stepped out of his vehicle with a handgun and moved toward the rifle fire instead of away from it.

Police are still investigating exactly how the shooting ended, but one fact is already clear. While most people were desperately trying to survive, one ordinary citizen decided innocent lives were worth risking his own.

America has a strange habit. We remember the killers.  We forget the men who stopped them.

This is not the first time.

In December 2019, a gunman opened fire during a church service at West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas. He murdered two worshippers before Jack Wilson, a firearms instructor sitting with the congregation, ended the attack with a single shot. Had Wilson not acted, many more people would likely have died.

In July 2022, a rifle-armed attacker entered Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana. Twenty two year old Elisjsha Dicken drew a concealed handgun and stopped him before the massacre grew larger. Police later praised his actions and acknowledged that his intervention almost certainly saved lives.

Earlier this year in Massachusetts, a Marine veteran carrying legally moved toward rifle fire on Memorial Drive and helped stop another attempted mass shooting alongside a state trooper.

Now Twin Falls joins that list.  Different states.  Different politics.  Different professions.  Different ages.  One pattern.  Ordinary Americans deciding that someone else’s family was worth risking their own life to protect.  That is not a political slogan.  It is a recurring fact.
One of the oddest features of our national conversation about mass shootings is that we spend enormous amounts of time discussing what police should do once they arrive, and almost no time discussing what ordinary citizens have done before they get there.  Police cannot teleport.  Even the best departments need minutes.  Mass shootings often unfold in seconds.
That gap between the first shot and the first patrol car is where these stories live.  Sometimes the only person standing between a murderer and his next victim is another citizen who happens to be there.
Not every armed citizen should intervene. Not every situation allows it. Many people should run, hide, and protect their families.  But history is full of moments when someone made a different choice. A church.  A shopping mall.  A highway in Massachusetts.  A fast-food parking lot in Idaho.  The details change.  The pattern does not.

None of these men woke up expecting to become heroes.  They were going to church.  Shopping.  Driving down the road.  Buying lunch. Then evil appeared.
And because they were armed, prepared, and willing to act, more people went home alive than otherwise would have.

That is not the whole conversation about firearms in America.  It does not answer every policy question.  But it is part of the truth, and it is a part of the truth our culture is remarkably quick to forget.  The headlines will spend days examining the killer.  His background.  His motives.  His politics.  His mental health.  His grievances.  That is understandable.

But I hope we also remember the man in the cowboy hat.  We may never know his name.  We may never know exactly how the final seconds unfolded.
But we know enough.  We know that while other people ran from the sound of rifle fire, he moved toward it.
America has produced more men like that than our headlines remember.
It would be a mistake to forget this one.
He was wearing a cowboy hat.

VIDEO 

WITNESSING AN INVASION