Category: democrats
Mexico has cartel armies. Blue America has cartel politics.
Detroit is synonymous with autos, Los Angeles with motion pictures, and Texas with oil. Pittsburgh still conjures steel. When a product or service anchors a region’s economy, that sector has power. Politicians court industry. Industry demands representation and, ideally, protection.
What’s true regionally is just as true nationally. That’s why K Street exists and lobbyists make big bucks. Fortunes rise and fall, but if our GDP slips even 3%, the usual talking heads sprint to the cameras to declare the American economy on the verge of collapse — and always under whichever Republican is in office. When a Democrat presides over a faltering economy, the political media prefers to drive the getaway car.
Harassing users did nothing to stop the poison. Blowing up supply at sea does. Every sunken shipment dents the cartels’ profits. Every explosion represents a tangible loss.
If any of us invented a product that added 3% to national GDP, we’d enjoy the influence over policy and legislation that naturally comes with living in a representative republic with a market economy. Innovation and competition fuel prosperity.
So here’s a question the blue-city, blue-state establishment doesn’t want asked: What percentage of its GDP comes from narcotics trafficking?
Recently a member of our self-styled House of Lords, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, erupted in outrage over the Pentagon’s lethal targeting of drug traffickers in the Caribbean. He said he was “deeply disturbed” by these operations. Was Reed ever equally disturbed by narcotics deaths in Providence or Pawtucket?
Some Democrats insist the traffickers are “impoverished fishermen.” Reed himself defended them on the grounds that “they are just trying to make money,” as if they weren’t waging chemical warfare on our civilian population. And he reassured us that the men killed weren’t running fentanyl — only cocaine. As though cocaine were some kind of civic improvement!
By any honest analysis, an overnight eradication of drug addiction in America would collapse an entire NGO ecosystem — along with the payrolls of the consultants, therapists, and bureaucrats who perpetually “mitigate” our crises of addiction, alcoholism, and dereliction. Given the nature of addiction, that blessed day will never come.
Look south. By my estimation, two-thirds of Mexico’s economy is directly or indirectly tied to narcotics. No, that’s not the Wall Street Journal’s number; nobody has the real statistics because the books are kept on scraps of paper known in DEA argot as “Pay/Owe” sheets. My estimate comes from observing the level of protection the trade enjoys at every tier of Mexican governance — local, rural, national. Narcotics are so economically essential that cartels decide who can run in elections with preordained outcomes. Their influence rivals that of the Democratic Party’s super delegates, if you’ll pardon the comparison.
Big Narco commands private armies, armored vehicles, anti-tank missiles, machine guns, uniforms, rules, and courts. The narcotics sector has effectively stalled Mexico’s political maturation.
And it’s affecting us too.
RELATED: Trump cracks the Caracas cartel code
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
In past administrations, the so-called war on drugs looked more like a war on addicts and their families, with only token strikes on the international criminal organizations moving the product. The Trump administration has reversed that. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is hitting the cartels directly. Harassing users did nothing to stop the poison. Blowing up supply at sea does. Every sunken shipment dents the cartels’ profits. Every explosion represents a tangible loss.
The hysterics from Jack Reed and others suggest these interdictions are hurting the economies of blue cities and states more than they care to admit. You’d think the destruction of cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl — inflicting daily carnage — would spark celebration. In Los Angeles County alone, the coroner processes six dead Americans per day from overdoses. Last year, it was eight. Fathers, mothers, runaway teens, derelict addicts — Americans, dead every day.
And yet Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — raw with presidential ambition — insists the leading cause of death for young Californians is firearms. This is false of course. But to blue-city politicians, gun control makes for better PR than confronting thousands of overdose deaths. Meanwhile Sacramento’s ruling cabal has passed a thicket of laws, regulations, and policies that effectively protect narcotics trafficking in the Golden State.
Guns hardly register in California’s GDP. Big Narco does.
Oxford Comms Guru, A Democratic Donor, Very Upset Over Free Beacon Report on Wes Moore
Oxford’s deputy communications chief, Julia Paolitto, was not a fan of the Washington Free Beacon’s report on Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D.), which revealed the potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate boasted about being a “foremost expert” on radical Islam—though nobody can find his graduate thesis from Oxford, where he attended graduate school as a Rhodes Scholar.
The post Oxford Comms Guru, A Democratic Donor, Very Upset Over Free Beacon Report on Wes Moore appeared first on .
WATCH: Rep. Bennie Thompson Refers To National Guard Shootings As ‘Unfortunate Accident’
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D., Miss.) referred to last month’s attack on two National Guardsmen as an “unfortunate accident” during a Thursday congressional hearing. He promised to “get it straight” after Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem called him out—then described it as “an unfortunate situation.”
The post WATCH: Rep. Bennie Thompson Refers To National Guard Shootings As ‘Unfortunate Accident’ appeared first on .
The Spectacle Ep. 307: Three Cheers for Jasmine Crockett! Texas Celebrates!
Jasmine Crockett is the likely candidate to secure the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate in Texas, especially as Colin…
Jasmine Crockett’s Farrakhan-Praising Pastor Launches Bid To Replace Crockett in Congress
Dallas pastor Frederick Haynes, who hailed anti-Semitic preacher Louis Farrakhan as a “great” man and lashed out at Israel in a sermon just one day after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, is running to replace a member of his congregation in Congress: firebrand House Democrat Jasmine Crockett (Texas).
The post Jasmine Crockett’s Farrakhan-Praising Pastor Launches Bid To Replace Crockett in Congress appeared first on .
Inside the left’s push to reshape 2028 with ranked-choice voting
If Democrats seem extreme now, wait until they adopt ranked-choice voting. Some activists inside the party want exactly that — a reform that would push presidential nominations even further left and force establishment figures to navigate an ideological gauntlet to win.
Multiple reports indicate that Democratic Party activists and elected officials are pressuring the party to adopt ranked-choice voting for its 2028 presidential primaries. Axios notes that the push has grown serious enough that top party officials met in late October with advocates including Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), pollster Celinda Lake, and representatives from FairVote Action.
Ranked-choice voting would pour accelerant on a process already pulling Democrats further left.
Such an effort fits a long pattern: For decades, Democrats have shifted presidential nominations away from party leadership. On ranked-choice voting specifically, several states already use it — Maine and Alaska among them — along with deep-blue cities such as New York, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Seattle.
Ranked-choice voting takes multiple forms, but New York City’s model illustrates the dynamic. Voters rank up to five candidates. If no candidate wins an initial majority, the last-place candidate drops out, and those voters’ second-choice votes are redistributed. This “loser leaves” process continues until a candidate secures a majority.
Assuming rational behavior, Democratic voters would likely rank candidates from more extreme to less extreme. That pattern would advantage the leftmost candidates again and again as lower-preference votes transfer upward.
This structural boost would encourage both supply and demand for extreme candidacies. Candidates on the ideological edge would have more incentive to run. Voters who prefer them would have more influence. Ranked-choice voting’s supporters tout this expanded participation as a virtue.
Offering voters multiple choices would foster coalition-building. Knowing the race may go to multiple rounds, candidates would angle for second- and third-choice votes. The horse-trading once done in old convention “smoke-filled rooms” would unfold publicly through a series of ranked ballots.
But the key question is simple: Why would ranked-choice voting necessarily supercharge extremism inside the Democratic Party? Because the system rewards voters for casting marginal votes — and among today’s Democrats, “marginal” means “further left.”
The party’s ideological shift is measurable. In Gallup’s 2023 polling, 54% of Democrats identified as liberal — an all-time high. Support for democratic socialists in major-city mayoral primaries shows how rapidly the party’s activist base has moved left. In 1995, the liberal share of the party was 25%, roughly equal to conservatives. Three decades later, conservatives make up just 10% of Democrats.
Exit polling confirms the trend: In 2024, 91% of self-identified liberals voted for Kamala Harris; only 9% of conservatives did.
Extrapolate from this trajectory, and the danger becomes even clearer. Extreme candidates increasingly win Democratic primaries in major cities. Those cities dominate statewide Democratic politics. And in closed primaries, only Democrats vote — meaning the hyper-engaged activist left already sets the terms of competition. Ranked-choice voting would amplify that influence. The same voters who nominated democratic socialists in New York and Seattle would wield disproportionate power in a presidential contest.
RELATED: Democrats are just noticing a long, deep-running problem
Photo by RYAN MCBRIDEDON EMMERTDON EMMERTKENA BETANCURROBYN BECKANGELA WEISSROBYN BECKROBYN BECKROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images
Consider how the 2020 Democratic primary might have played out under ranked-choice voting. Joe Biden — an establishment candidate favored by moderates — would have faced a field dominated by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Tom Steyer, and others to his left. Ranked-choice voting would have forced him through a gauntlet designed by the party’s most ideological voters.
This trend is not new. In 1972, George McGovern reshaped Democratic nominating rules and then benefited from the changes. Since then, the party has repeatedly weakened its establishment’s role (with key exceptions). Ranked-choice voting would accelerate that shift dramatically.
With moderates now only 36% of the party, according to Gallup, how could they resist a move toward ranked-choice voting? More importantly, which remaining moderate or establishment Democrat could survive a ranked-choice system dominated by the party’s left wing?
Ranked-choice voting would pour accelerant on a process already pulling Democrats further left. The only question is how long it takes for the party to adopt it — and how long the party can remain viable nationally if it does.
Mamdani Transition Adviser’s Nonprofit Under Congressional Investigation for Allegedly Teaching Illegal Aliens How To Evade ICE
New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s (D.) transition team includes a man whose organization is under congressional investigation for allegedly teaching illegal aliens how to evade ICE officers, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.
The post Mamdani Transition Adviser’s Nonprofit Under Congressional Investigation for Allegedly Teaching Illegal Aliens How To Evade ICE appeared first on .
‘Law enforcement isn’t to prevent crime’ — Jasmine Crockett makes wild claims about ICE and National Guard
Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas has some interesting ideas on how law enforcement should be utilized.
Crockett was speaking on the “Grounded” podcast when she was asked about the presence of military vehicles in cities like Washington, D.C., and Chicago.
‘They are not trained to deal with civilians in that way.’
Host Jon Tester wanted to hear Crockett’s thoughts, asking the congresswoman if she thought it was good or bad to have military presence in those cities.
“I think it’s terrible,” the politician replied. “First of all, you know, I’m like, how is it that we have a government that is hostile towards its people? Because that’s what it is. I mean, we are in the midst of a hostile government takeover, and it is our government that is, like, bringing the hostility.”
Crockett prefaced her remarks, made in September but now going viral, by saying that she would need to go into “legal mode” to explain how agencies like ICE and the United States Armed Forces are being misused by the Trump administration.
It was during that portion of her statements that Crockett made the odd claim about how local law enforcement is supposed to operate:
“I want to be clear that, like, law enforcement isn’t to prevent crime. Law enforcement solves crime. OK? That is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to solve crimes, not necessarily, um, prevent them from happening per se.”
RELATED: Jasmine Crockett claims Republicans ‘LOVE’ her
In addition to those views, Crockett claimed she does not believe the “average person” understands the different types of training that various law enforcement or military agencies undergo.
“So literally ICE is not trained to go out and do what they’re doing,” the 44-year-old stated.
However, not only do ICE’s Enforcement and Removal operations teams train for “arrest, detention, and removal of aliens,” but the American Immigration Lawyers Association even called ICE agents “among the most highly trained federal law enforcement officers in the United States” in 2018.
Moreover, the St. Louis native said she worried about the U.S. military’s “readiness” due to the Trump administration “not doing smart things” with its allies. She then cited “different training” and different missions as being the reasons why she believes ICE and the National Guard are being misused by Trump.
“Local law enforcement, whether it’s your local municipal police, your sheriff’s deputies, your state troopers, they are trained completely differently. They are the ones that are trained in investigatory work. They are the ones that are trained on how to testify in trial, how to pull a case together. Same thing with, like, your FBI, your DEA, and that kind of stuff,” Crockett went on.
The congresswoman then boldly claimed that those who signed up for the military do not have the training to deal with civilians.
“We are taking those that signed up for the service in whatever capacity, and we are now putting them on the streets and having them with guns. They are not trained to deal with civilians in that way. That is not what they are trained to do. Like, when you sign up for any military, you are a trained killer. You are trained for war, not for going and policing our streets. All right?”
Not only are civilian interactions common practice in training operations for U.S. military members, per official training documents, but the District of Columbia National Guard specifically trained for civilian interactions as recently as May 2024 under the Joe Biden administration.
The training noted the D.C. National Guard as having a long history of supporting operations in D.C. and that the training would help the entity “continue to support local law enforcement agencies in the metropolitan area.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
WATCH: ‘Then Why Aren’t There State Prosecutions?’ Local Reporter Calls BS on Tim Walz’s Claim He Sent Somali Fraudsters to Jail
Minnesota governor Tim Walz (D.) was pressed by a local reporter on his false claim that he sent Somali fraudsters to jail.
The post WATCH: ‘Then Why Aren’t There State Prosecutions?’ Local Reporter Calls BS on Tim Walz’s Claim He Sent Somali Fraudsters to Jail appeared first on .
